2aHawaii
General Topics => General Discussion => Topic started by: eyeeatingfish on May 29, 2022, 11:24:08 PM
-
Interesting interview about the findings from two professors on the subject of mass shooters. One a criminology professor and the other a criminal justice professor. A bit of a read but they seem to take a good analytical look, not typical knee jerk political responses. They wrote a book and the interview just covers some bits from their book. I haven't read the book but I am going to order it on Amazon to read further.
A few takeaways:
-These aren't merely murders, they are violent suicides.
-These are troubled individuals and not necessarily evil
-An effective approach needs to be multi-pronged including gun control, mental health services, and interventions by schools, police, and parents.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/27/stopping-mass-shooters-q-a-00035762?fbclid=IwAR1hJ0RSlgAS0tJkW8eo0r6vRWFkLoIL7TGHytZpRX_6ujpC0CCUsCVVeOM
-
I have ordered the book (not available yet) and also follow their IG site. The information provided is SUPER INFORMATIVE. Espeically on the Websites. Now if POLITICANS (MORE DEMOCRATS) can get this information, they MIGHT make REAL Headway in making a difference.
Everyone should review and see what they think.
Aloha!
-
Interesting interview about the findings from two professors on the subject of mass shooters. One a criminology professor and the other a criminal justice professor. A bit of a read but they seem to take a good analytical look, not typical knee jerk political responses. They wrote a book and the interview just covers some bits from their book. I haven't read the book but I am going to order it on Amazon to read further.
A few takeaways:
-These aren't merely murders, they are violent suicides.
-These are troubled individuals and not necessarily evil
-An effective approach needs to be multi-pronged including gun control, mental health services, and interventions by schools, police, and parents.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/27/stopping-mass-shooters-q-a-00035762?fbclid=IwAR1hJ0RSlgAS0tJkW8eo0r6vRWFkLoIL7TGHytZpRX_6ujpC0CCUsCVVeOM
Unless you aren't too observant, these shooters are all suicides and they don't want to go alone.
Kind like a moslem.
Politco is a Democrat party functionary so I treat them as such and do not trust anything they produce as it is likely a lie,
or at least very biased.
>:D
"Interventions by schools, police, and parents."
hasn't worked thus far.
Y'all left out Church.
They need the fear of God.
In my religion belief the worst sin is suicide.
You can be forgiven most anything, you have done but
you can't ask for forgiveness for killing yourself.
:wave:
-
I think your missing the point if you dont review what their reaseach was and did. Put your BIASED POLICITO thinking aside! Where is the "MIDDLE GROUND". I think their reseach is NOT biased. It talks about "MENTAL HEALTH". It talks about other things like the AR-15 is NOT the most used weapon. This is important to note. Again, we all need to read with an "open mind". I think this is a great "starting point". We must be able to bring ideas thou not perfect but to the table of discussion. Aloha!
-
Politco is a Democrat party functionary so I treat them as such and do not trust anything they produce as it is likely a lie,
or at least very biased.
This^^^
Definitely a leftist site not to be trusted as anything but a DNC jockstrap.
-
I think any news agency that names itself "Politico" is advertising itself as a biased political group.
MediaBiasFactCheck.com has this to say:
Overall, we rate Politico Left-Center biased based on story selection and editorial positions that slightly favor the left.
We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact check record.
I tend to agree with that assessment. While Politico does tend to publish more Leftist-leaning opinions, the facts they publish tend to be more trustworthy than the rest of the big MSM agencies like CNN.
Having said that, before distrusting the information they publish, take the time to not only read it, but also click the links to the sourced articles (or, in this case, the book) and read that, too. Most times I find they are factually accurate albeit supportive of Leftist positions.
Basically, their lies are based on the truth. You just have to make the effort to sift through the BS.
The first thing that caught my eye in the OP article was this:
Melanie Warner is a writer in Honolulu and author, most recently, of
The Magic Feather Effect: The Science of Alternative Medicine and
the Surprising Power of Belief.
So, right away, I'm not sure I'd take the OPINIONS (or loaded questions) of the author on face value, but that's not the issue. Is she honestly conveying the facts of the study? I think she's trying:
Their findings, also published in the 2021 book, The Violence Project: How to Stop a Mass Shooting Epidemic,
reveal striking commonalities among the perpetrators of mass shootings and suggest a data-backed, mental
health-based approach could identify and address the next mass shooter before he pulls the trigger — if only
politicians are willing to actually engage in finding and funding targeted solutions.
That sounds like what we've been saying on this forum forever. We need to stop pushing an agenda (gun control, Assault Weapons ban, raising legal ages to purchase, etc.) since there's no evidence any of those "solutions" could have prevented any of the past mass shootings -- not one. Looking for commonalities and treating each shooting independently to gather the FACTS surrounding the shooter's mental status, motivations and potential preventative factors BEFORE trying to do comparisons with other shooters/shootings makes sense to me.
The anti-gun politicians and media will find one common thread -- or make one up -- and plaster that all over the Internet. "Shooter was a White male with ties to White Supremacist group." That's the agenda talking, not analysis and in-depth research. "Ties to White Supremacist Group" could mean he was friends with a guy who shared racist memes on FB. The next day, you find out the shooter was a Clinton supporter who hated the GOP and all Conservatives, especially Christians. I get tired of these buzzwords that rarely tell us what's behind the characterization.
https://www.theviolenceproject.org/about-us/our-book/
I think this is ONE way of searching for solutions that work in a nation hell-bent on using these tragedies to justify taking away second amendment protected rights.
I don't, however, think this is THE solution. Focusing so heavily on hiring so many psychologists to identify potentially violent kids in school is problematic. Privacy issues, liability, and so on can restrict how much a mental health professional can do. How do you know you stopped a school shooting that never happened? Hard to show the results of such efforts unless the would-be murderer admits he was planning to commit crimes, but he was prevented by the school psychiatrist -- either by talking it out or being reported to authorities.
We have billions of people in the country. Add to that the millions who come to the US every year from foreign countries. It's impossible to believe we can stop everyone who plans to commit mass murder. The only way to prevent a mass shooting is to have enough people present who are prepared to stop it once it starts. We've seen many stories of churches and schools where armed individuals, both official guards and regular attendees, stopped the killing before it became a "mass shooting." These criminals usually look for soft targets. Making schools "gun free zones" only creates a safer environment for those seeking to do harm.
Plan for the worst, but hope for the best. When all efforts of prevention fail, there's only one solution that remains: prepare to meet force with force.
But, I'm probably preaching to the choir. :shaka:
-
I think your missing the point if you dont review what their reaseach was and did. Put your BIASED POLICITO thinking aside! Where is the "MIDDLE GROUND". I think their reseach is NOT biased. It talks about "MENTAL HEALTH". It talks about other things like the AR-15 is NOT the most used weapon. This is important to note. Again, we all need to read with an "open mind". I think this is a great "starting point". We must be able to bring ideas thou not perfect but to the table of discussion. Aloha!
Exactly, that's why I am going to get the book first and read it. Politico may slant their story so by buying the book I can go to the source. At least since this is an interview instead of a book review we are hearing what the author's themselves are saying, not paraphrased stuff.
An open mind is vital, everyone gets defensive on this topic and progress comes to a standstill
-
I have touched on the idea before that we as a gun rights community need to provide some realistic steps to reduce gun violence. Too often our solutions are just pointing out what we can't do about the problem. The standard go to answer of hardening schools is not only not that good of a solution but is also seen as rather heartless. We can claim we are standing on the constitution but that will be meaningless if the anti gun crowd can so easily paint us as not caring and not doing anything to solve the problem. We risk end up losing much more of our firearm rights if we can't consider actual steps.
As conservatives we say hire armed guard but realistically conservatives don't have great records on increasing school funding. Then we say "more health services" but we are against any socialized health care which might provide free mental health care to these troubled people. We also say solve social problems that lead to kids becoming criminals but how often are conservatives pushing things like free meals, free child care, and other such social programs which would help to reduce these social problems? These are all fine ideas but we never follow through, we say them but do we believe them? We just look like hypocrites.
-
We are now having more boys that fail to launch. Many have behavior problems and
have difficulty with learning and social skills. Girls raised in the same family as the
boys do not have the same problems. I know that this is not politically correct since
the feminization of our educational system is now the norm.
https://youtu.be/OFpYj0E-yb4
-
I have touched on the idea before that we as a gun rights community need to provide some realistic steps to reduce gun violence. Too often our solutions are just pointing out what we can't do about the problem. The standard go to answer of hardening schools is not only not that good of a solution but is also seen as rather heartless. We can claim we are standing on the constitution but that will be meaningless if the anti gun crowd can so easily paint us as not caring and not doing anything to solve the problem. We risk end up losing much more of our firearm rights if we can't consider actual steps.
As conservatives we say hire armed guard but realistically conservatives don't have great records on increasing school funding. Then we say "more health services" but we are against any socialized health care which might provide free mental health care to these troubled people. We also say solve social problems that lead to kids becoming criminals but how often are conservatives pushing things like free meals, free child care, and other such social programs which would help to reduce these social problems? These are all fine ideas but we never follow through, we say them but do we believe them? We just look like hypocrites.
What’s also meaningless is trying to appease the anti-gun crowd. People who don’t even care to get even a little educated about the topic they are discussing aren’t even worth trying to appeal to. I’m curious how you can say “hardening schools is heartless or not that good of a solution”? Shooters literally target these areas because they are soft targets.
-
I have touched on the idea before that we as a gun rights community need to provide some realistic steps to reduce gun violence. Too often our solutions are just pointing out what we can't do about the problem. The standard go to answer of hardening schools is not only not that good of a solution but is also seen as rather heartless. We can claim we are standing on the constitution but that will be meaningless if the anti gun crowd can so easily paint us as not caring and not doing anything to solve the problem. We risk end up losing much more of our firearm rights if we can't consider actual steps.
As conservatives we say hire armed guard but realistically conservatives don't have great records on increasing school funding. Then we say "more health services" but we are against any socialized health care which might provide free mental health care to these troubled people. We also say solve social problems that lead to kids becoming criminals but how often are conservatives pushing things like free meals, free child care, and other such social programs which would help to reduce these social problems? These are all fine ideas but we never follow through, we say them but do we believe them? We just look like hypocrites.
Hardening schools should be tried. Give teachers/staff the option to carry. Health services only go so far as many go un-diagnosed (like the Ulvade shooter). We harden many other places of value, so why not our schools.
Anyone who is protected by guns, should not have a say in disarming the people until they too give up their armed protection. Like politicians, it's easy to talk when you have an army protecting your work place and in public (depending on what position they are). Or how about HPD, as long as the officer is inside the station, they do not need to be armed. So like Japan or even our military stationed in the USA, you need to get your gun from the armory, and only when it's needed. Ex-chief Ballad's statement for denying CCW applicants are to call 911.
"These are troubled individuals and not necessarily evil". This statement is worry some because it sounds like providing an excuse. Which is pretty much the statement that the Ulvade shooters mom made. Maybe she read the same book?
-
We are now having more boys that fail to launch. Many have behavior problems and
have difficulty with learning and social skills. Girls raised in the same family as the
boys do not have the same problems. I know that this is not politically correct since
the feminization of our educational system is now the norm.
https://youtu.be/OFpYj0E-yb4
Having been on of those "troubled" boys in my youth.
Have your ever met any that boy was suspended from Kindergarten several times?
and first, second, third, and fourth, et al?
Schools are a problem as they are very feminized, but the real problem is the lack of a father
figure for a lot of boys.
You can recover from the political BS
that schools dump on kids if you have a dad that acts like a man.
You are supposed to learn most your "Life skills" from your parents,
not some frustrated person that can only get a BA , MA degree, or
Phd in education..
:wtf:
-
This wasn't a problem 20 years ago. What changed?
"easy access to firearms"
Bzzzzzz.... WRONG. Try again.
How about pumping our population full of ultra-profitable and extremely dangerous psychoactive medications?
Oh right. The "researchers" can't risk pissing off Big Pharma. That would be the end of their careers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0051hkjB9po
-
If your only rationale for implementing a proposal is to appease a group of people in an attempt to prove to them that you care about kids, then you've already lost. Acquiescing on anything other than a well-defined and specific solution wastes time, money and resources. Doing this will only result in another school shooting, and there still won't be armed adults on campus to meet the threat with lethal force.
Who cares more? The anti-gun crowd who refuses to let faculty carry concealed weapons, or the gun owners who refuse to implement "solutions" that would have stopped zero mass shootings?
Anti-gun activists do not have solutions for identified problems. They have an agenda which they push anytime there is a mass shooting. Period.
People desperate for a solution to a life-or-death problem will grasp at straws, especially if they don't understand the problem at hand. It's up to the adults in the room who see the problem clearly to talk those people out of falling for scams that are designed to only take from us our liberties and wealth even though the proposals are based solely on emotion and have been proven to be ineffective.
-
I have touched on the idea before that we as a gun rights community need to provide some realistic steps to reduce gun violence. Too often our solutions are just pointing out what we can't do about the problem. The standard go to answer of hardening schools is not only not that good of a solution but is also seen as rather heartless. We can claim we are standing on the constitution but that will be meaningless if the anti gun crowd can so easily paint us as not caring and not doing anything to solve the problem. We risk end up losing much more of our firearm rights if we can't consider actual steps.
As conservatives we say hire armed guard but realistically conservatives don't have great records on increasing school funding. Then we say "more health services" but we are against any socialized health care which might provide free mental health care to these troubled people. We also say solve social problems that lead to kids becoming criminals but how often are conservatives pushing things like free meals, free child care, and other such social programs which would help to reduce these social problems? These are all fine ideas but we never follow through, we say them but do we believe them? We just look like hypocrites.
There are many "realistic steps" that have been proposed or even offered. Just that those living in their "safe space utopia" are too fragile to admit that A) evil exists and B) evil doesn't follow laws. Until the "other side" realizes that and take a good hard look in the mirror and sees the ignorance, nothing is going to change.
Also don't "need" to harden all schools. Just make it a point to implement deterrence, or at least give appearance of such. Same thing as why the sheep feel protected. . .
-
What’s also meaningless is trying to appease the anti-gun crowd. People who don’t even care to get even a little educated about the topic they are discussing aren’t even worth trying to appeal to. I’m curious how you can say “hardening schools is heartless or not that good of a solution”? Shooters literally target these areas because they are soft targets.
I wouldn't consider it appeasement, what I am talking about is image management. Why manage our image? Because if the far left gets enough votes our gun rights will get taken away, plain and simple. Whether through a change to the second amendment or through liberal justices on the SCOTUS if they get enough support we stand to lose some or all of our gun rights.
To me part of that image management means coming up with and/or supporting ideas to help address the problem. Part of that should include some level of gun control legislation. Some may chide it as another compromise of our rights but I look at it as a balancing act. No right is absolute which means we have to figure out where to draw the line, balancing the necessity of firearms against the risks that come with them.
I am not against hardening schools, I am saying that it looks heartless to the other side. As for why I say it's not a good solution, it's because it is a reactionary measure not a preventative measure. During Columbine there was an armed officer on campus and it did not dissuade the shooters and some shooters have attacked hard targets before. It's a Band-Aid, it helps but it's not a solution. Our problems with gun violence didn't start when guns became available, there are other factors at work and that is what we need to address for a solution.
-
I wouldn't consider it appeasement, what I am talking about is image management. Why manage our image? Because if the far left gets enough votes our gun rights will get taken away, plain and simple. Whether through a change to the second amendment or through liberal justices on the SCOTUS if they get enough support we stand to lose some or all of our gun rights.
I am not against hardening schools, I am saying that it looks heartless to the other side. As for why I say it's not a good solution, it's because it is a reactionary measure not a preventative measure. During Columbine there was an armed officer on campus and it did not dissuade the shooters and some shooters have attacked hard targets before. It's a Band-Aid, it helps but it's not a solution. Our problems with gun violence didn't start when guns became available, there are other factors at work and that is what we need to address for a solution.
The entire system of laws are not preventative. They only REACT to people AFTER they commit crimes.
So, you're of the opinion that gun laws would need to be the first laws in US History to actually prevent crimes?
The only time laws prevent crime is when the criminal has broken the law once and is either put to death or incarcerated. Otherwise, there is nothing preventing them from committing more crimes -- especially not the law.
Murder is illegal. Maybe we need stronger laws to prevent that?
-
nothing is free.
-
This wasn't a problem 20 years ago. What changed?
"easy access to firearms"
Bzzzzzz.... WRONG. Try again.
Yes and no. Clearly access itself is not the problem because ar-15s were available long before mass shootings became a thing but easy access to firearms, along with other factors combine together to make the problem.
-
The entire system of laws are not preventative. They only REACT to people AFTER they commit crimes.
So, you're of the opinion that gun laws would need to be the first laws in US History to actually prevent crimes?
The only time laws prevent crime is when the criminal has broken the law once and is either put to death or incarcerated. Otherwise, there is nothing preventing them from committing more crimes -- especially not the law.
Murder is illegal. Maybe we need stronger laws to prevent that?
Many laws work to prevent problems, what you are saying is simply not correct.
The whole argument of "criminals don't follow laws" is a silly one. Might as well just not have any laws then if that logic holds true. It's just an empty saying anyway, it's true by definition. It's like saying only dihonest people lie.
-
Hardening schools should be tried. Give teachers/staff the option to carry. Health services only go so far as many go un-diagnosed (like the Ulvade shooter). We harden many other places of value, so why not our schools.
Anyone who is protected by guns, should not have a say in disarming the people until they too give up their armed protection. Like politicians, it's easy to talk when you have an army protecting your work place and in public (depending on what position they are). Or how about HPD, as long as the officer is inside the station, they do not need to be armed. So like Japan or even our military stationed in the USA, you need to get your gun from the armory, and only when it's needed. Ex-chief Ballad's statement for denying CCW applicants are to call 911.
"These are troubled individuals and not necessarily evil". This statement is worry some because it sounds like providing an excuse. Which is pretty much the statement that the Ulvade shooters mom made. Maybe she read the same book?
With many of these shooters there are signs that aren't acted upon so it's not always a matter of just people who no one knew had a problem.
Again I am not against hardening schools, to me it is just a measure that would have limited effectiveness
I don't see why saying they are troubled instead of evil provides any sort of excuse. Blaming evil adds nothing to the discussion, we can't fight evil. However when we see these people as troubled now that gives us avenues to work on the problems. Bullying, problems at home, depression, substance abuse, etc. All things we can address. Calling them evil just demonizes them, makes us feel better in judging them, it doesn't do anything else. I would say we can call their acts evil but when it comes to the individual we need to see that something is wrong inside and sometimes it can be fixed before these things happen.
-
I wouldn't consider it appeasement, what I am talking about is image management. Why manage our image? Because if the far left gets enough votes our gun rights will get taken away, plain and simple. Whether through a change to the second amendment or through liberal justices on the SCOTUS if they get enough support we stand to lose some or all of our gun rights.
To me part of that image management means coming up with and/or supporting ideas to help address the problem. Part of that should include some level of gun control legislation. Some may chide it as another compromise of our rights but I look at it as a balancing act. No right is absolute which means we have to figure out where to draw the line, balancing the necessity of firearms against the risks that come with them.
I am not against hardening schools, I am saying that it looks heartless to the other side. As for why I say it's not a good solution, it's because it is a reactionary measure not a preventative measure. During Columbine there was an armed officer on campus and it did not dissuade the shooters and some shooters have attacked hard targets before. It's a Band-Aid, it helps but it's not a solution. Our problems with gun violence didn't start when guns became available, there are other factors at work and that is what we need to address for a solution.
I don’t care what you “consider” it to be, at the end of the day that’s exactly what your doing. “Image managing” by submitting to their misplaced outrage by passing laws that would not have done anything to stop any of the mass shootings. The logic of every single gun control bill that they want to pass could be used over and over again to pass more gun legislation. You are not talking to rational people who want some sort of middle ground on gun control. They want it all, and like a child throwing a tantrum the more you give into their irrational behavior the worse they become.
I never once said anything about hiring an armed guard. I don’t believe an armed officer would do any good in this situation. The shooter would simply target him first or plan around him. The correct answer is allowing teachers to CC if they so choose. In a bunch of these mass shootings there were people who were licensed to carry that could’ve stopped the shooting but were prevented from carrying on campus. Parkland and columbine come to mind. Taking into consideration that CCW holders are among the safest and most law abiding demographic in the nation makes this a simple and logical solution.
Also no right is absolute? Rights that aren’t absolute are called privileges. Every right is absolute, otherwise what is the goddamn point of a right.
You keep worrying about the “far left” but I’m more worried about “gun owners” like you.
-
I don’t care what you “consider” it to be, at the end of the day that’s exactly what your doing. “Image managing” by submitting to their misplaced outrage by passing laws that would not have done anything to stop any of the mass shootings. The logic of every single gun control bill that they want to pass could be used over and over again to pass more gun legislation. You are not talking to rational people who want some sort of middle ground on gun control. They want it all, and like a child throwing a tantrum the more you give into their irrational behavior the worse they become.
I never once said anything about hiring an armed guard. I don’t believe an armed officer would do any good in this situation. The shooter would simply target him first or plan around him. The correct answer is allowing teachers to CC if they so choose. In a bunch of these mass shootings there were people who were licensed to carry that could’ve stopped the shooting but were prevented from carrying on campus. Parkland and columbine come to mind. Taking into consideration that CCW holders are among the safest and most law abiding demographic in the nation makes this a simple and logical solution.
Also no right is absolute? Rights that aren’t absolute are called privileges. Every right is absolute, otherwise what is the goddamn point of a right.
You keep worrying about the “far left” but I’m more worried about “gun owners” like you.
We can't pretend public opinion doesn't matter. At the end of the day people get to vote for the direction of the country. We can dig our fox holes and hold fast and it will do absolutely nothing when they get enough votes to get their way.
It's a false narrative that they all just want to take away all our rights. There are plenty of moderates who believe in some private firearm ownership. The far left scares people about guns and the far right scare people about gun control. Don't fall for either.
Armed teachers would have some advantage in not being marked targets but they would still be prime targets. Any rational shooter would first target the guards, then any adults, and then the children. Plus armed teachers would rarely prevent a shooting, just end it sooner. That's good but it is still a bandaid. It's like treating heart disease by only carrying around an defibrillator.
Yes, rights are not absolute. Find me any right listed in the constitution that does not have some limit. We could argue around the middle ground but sooner or later you would have to admit some line has to be drawn.
-
We can't pretend public opinion doesn't matter. At the end of the day people get to vote for the direction of the country. We can dig our fox holes and hold fast and it will do absolutely nothing when they get enough votes to get their way.
It's a false narrative that they all just want to take away all our rights. There are plenty of moderates who believe in some private firearm ownership. The far left scares people about guns and the far right scare people about gun control. Don't fall for either.
Armed teachers would have some advantage in not being marked targets but they would still be prime targets. Any rational shooter would first target the guards, then any adults, and then the children. Plus armed teachers would rarely prevent a shooting, just end it sooner. That's good but it is still a bandaid. It's like treating heart disease by only carrying around an defibrillator.
Yes, rights are not absolute. Find me any right listed in the constitution that does not have some limit. We could argue around the middle ground but sooner or later you would have to admit some line has to be drawn.
Like I said, I’m more worried about people like you. Who cares about some fringe leftist who wants to yank our second amendment when we have people like you who will just give it to them?
Nice strawman I never said they wanted to take all our rights I said they want all our guns. If you actually read what I wrote I said that the logic they’re using for gun control can be applied to all guns over time. Look at your president now talking about how 9mm will blow the lung out of the body. So rifles that shoot 5.56 and handguns that shoot 9mm are too dangerous to own now, and you wanna compromise with these people? Good grief.
These are mentally deranged individuals not special forces operators. You call the shooter “rational” yet think they would gung ho into an area where he could immediately be met with lethal resistance. There’s nothing rational about that. There’s a reason the overwhelming majority of mass shooting occur in gun free zones.
The entire constitution is absolute I don’t know where people get this idea that it isn’t. Since you wanna play this silly game, how absolute is the 19th and 13th ammendment?
-
We can't pretend public opinion doesn't matter. At the end of the day people get to vote for the direction of the country. We can dig our fox holes and hold fast and it will do absolutely nothing when they get enough votes to get their way.
It's a false narrative that they all just want to take away all our rights. There are plenty of moderates who believe in some private firearm ownership. The far left scares people about guns and the far right scare people about gun control. Don't fall for either.
Armed teachers would have some advantage in not being marked targets but they would still be prime targets. Any rational shooter would first target the guards, then any adults, and then the children. Plus armed teachers would rarely prevent a shooting, just end it sooner. That's good but it is still a bandaid. It's like treating heart disease by only carrying around an defibrillator.
Yes, rights are not absolute. Find me any right listed in the constitution that does not have some limit. We could argue around the middle ground but sooner or later you would have to admit some line has to be drawn.
Rights are ABSOLUTE!
The line is where my exercise of my rights interfere with your rights.
Occam's razor, the simple explanation is usually the best.
Needless complexity should be eliminated.
:geekdanc:
-
With many of these shooters there are signs that aren't acted upon so it's not always a matter of just people who no one knew had a problem.
Again I am not against hardening schools, to me it is just a measure that would have limited effectiveness
I don't see why saying they are troubled instead of evil provides any sort of excuse. Blaming evil adds nothing to the discussion, we can't fight evil. However when we see these people as troubled now that gives us avenues to work on the problems. Bullying, problems at home, depression, substance abuse, etc. All things we can address. Calling them evil just demonizes them, makes us feel better in judging them, it doesn't do anything else. I would say we can call their acts evil but when it comes to the individual we need to see that something is wrong inside and sometimes it can be fixed before these things happen.
Just law firearm safety, there needs to be multiple measures in place in case 1 or 2 or 3 fail.
Madison Stone Douglas, the shooter "was left behind". He begged to return back to SPED after showing a huge decline in academics after being transferred to regular classes. The system failed him. IMO, this could have prevented the situation, because he then stopped coming to school. (downward spiral)
Columbine, the shooters were bullied and on anti depressants (which means mental help sought). So only real failure here would be if the bullying was reported and not stopped.
Sandy Hook, the shooter killed his mom and stole her guns. No real system failure.
MIT shooter, college level, IDK much details on the why. But this was the largest active shooting deaths until the Vegas shooting. 2 pistols used, 9mm and 22LR.
Ulvalde, no system failure, unless his bullying was reported and nothing was done. He had no mental health professional help sought and no felonies.
So as you can see with the school shootings listed above, sometimes there is a system failure and sometimes there isn't. So evil needs to be met ASAP. Which is why giving staff the choice to be armed IMO is the best and least cost effective thing to try. There are groups out there who will train teachers for free. Like the Ohio situation after MSD. They trained over 300 teachers in a month, all free. I can guarantee if there was a magic machine that could go back in time and give the teachers who died an option to either have a gun, gun free zone sign, or a phone when the active shooter shows up, all of them would choose a gun.
-
Like I said, I’m more worried about people like you. Who cares about some fringe leftist who wants to yank our second amendment when we have people like you who will just give it to them?
Nice strawman I never said they wanted to take all our rights I said they want all our guns. If you actually read what I wrote I said that the logic they’re using for gun control can be applied to all guns over time. Look at your president now talking about how 9mm will blow the lung out of the body. So rifles that shoot 5.56 and handguns that shoot 9mm are too dangerous to own now, and you wanna compromise with these people? Good grief.
These are mentally deranged individuals not special forces operators. You call the shooter “rational” yet think they would gung ho into an area where he could immediately be met with lethal resistance. There’s nothing rational about that. There’s a reason the overwhelming majority of mass shooting occur in gun free zones.
The entire constitution is absolute I don’t know where people get this idea that it isn’t. Since you wanna play this silly game, how absolute is the 19th and 13th ammendment?
It's like that girlfriend that tells you, "if you love me then you'll...."
And when you don't do it, they give you the, "you must not love me then" bullcrap.
Best to be firm & non negotiable, because they know no bounds
-
It's a false narrative that they all just want to take away all our rights. There are plenty of moderates who believe in some private firearm ownership. The far left scares people about guns and the far right scare people about gun control. Don't fall for either.
Armed teachers would have some advantage in not being marked targets but they would still be prime targets. Any rational shooter would first target the guards, then any adults, and then the children. Plus armed teachers would rarely prevent a shooting, just end it sooner. That's good but it is still a bandaid. It's like treating heart disease by only carrying around an defibrillator.
Yes, rights are not absolute. Find me any right listed in the constitution that does not have some limit. We could argue around the middle ground but sooner or later you would have to admit some line has to be drawn.
1) What rock you been under, if the left had their way, ALL guns would be banned.
2) Armed teachers is circular thought. So if they would be targeted 1st, then we need tanks outside the schools and barbed wire. Like Cuban banks have.
3) Enough has been taken away of the 2nd amendment that any further bans need to stop.
Not all of us have the option to being armed at work, or surrounded by a 90% armed staff. So maybe you need to think about how the rest of us regular folk are doing (I don't mean this in a mean or sarcastic way).
-
Plus armed teachers would rarely prevent a shooting, just end it sooner.
If that's the perspective your holding, then it's clear why you can't find the answers your looking for.
Short of the minority report(thought crimes), you can't prevent people from doing bad things, no matter how hard you try.
Like you said, all you can do is end it sooner.
The sooner a law abiding citizen arrives with a firearm, the sooner it will be ended.
-
It's like that girlfriend that tells you, "if you love me then you'll...."
And when you don't do it, they give you the, "you must not love me then" bullcrap.
Best to be firm & non negotiable, because they know no bounds
Exactly. The problem with debating a “middle ground” especially with someone who doesn’t believe that rights are absolute is that that middle ground will constantly change. Automatic weapons were a “middle ground” now semiautomatics are the new “middle ground” on and on and on we go.
-
Exactly. The problem with debating a “middle ground” especially with someone who doesn’t believe that rights are absolute is that that middle ground will constantly change. Automatic weapons were a “middle ground” now semiautomatics are the new “middle ground” on and on and on we go.
There is no "middle ground". It's just how much less we get taken away. Middle ground would mean both sides benefit, just benefit less.
-
If you're negotiating how much of YOUR rights get taken away, and the other side gives up NOTHING in return, that's NOT a negotiation.
It's surrender.
Each time law abiding gun owners give up on an issue -- mag capacities, so-called Assault Weapons, waiting periods, taxes on guns and ammo, limits on how many guns you can buy each month, where you can or can't have a gun, whether or not states must issue carry permits, accessories that change nothing about a gun's function, etc., etc... -- the other side offers nothing in return.
Acquiescence means you voluntarily give up something with no expectation of any quid pro quo.
-
We can't pretend public opinion doesn't matter. At the end of the day people get to vote for the direction of the country. We can dig our fox holes and hold fast and it will do absolutely nothing when they get enough votes to get their way.
It's a false narrative that they all just want to take away all our rights. There are plenty of moderates who believe in some private firearm ownership. The far left scares people about guns and the far right scare people about gun control. Don't fall for either.
Armed teachers would have some advantage in not being marked targets but they would still be prime targets. Any rational shooter would first target the guards, then any adults, and then the children. Plus armed teachers would rarely prevent a shooting, just end it sooner. That's good but it is still a bandaid. It's like treating heart disease by only carrying around an defibrillator.
Yes, rights are not absolute. Find me any right listed in the constitution that does not have some limit. We could argue around the middle ground but sooner or later you would have to admit some line has to be drawn.
You can't have a rational, logical, constructive discussion on guns with people who don't know anything about guns other than slogans, emotions and lies.
The MSM has lied to their audiences for so long about so many issues, those consumers of that information will never admit that they are wrong or don't understand the issues involved.
"I'd answer your question, but then I'd have to explain it," is the problem. Lots of good examples on some podcasts of Liberals who flat out called someone a liar when presented facts that opposed their own beliefs fed to them by the MSM. When provided actual video evidence that was impossible to refute, some still dismissed it as fake, and others took days and several times viewing the videos to finally understand that they've been lied to for years, and they willingly believed whatever lies they were fed.
How is ANYTHING we say on the pro-2A side of the argument going to sway those kinds of people? And there are millions of those people out there.
-
the person you are debating with has certain rights that we regular citizens dont have, so he lacks our perspective. Any bans likely wont affect him.
-
the person you are debating with has certain rights that we regular citizens dont have, so he lacks our perspective. Any bans likely wont affect him.
Not only that but he has been trained to see us as the enemy and is disingenuously seeking a force advantage.
(https://s1.qwant.com/thumbr/0x0/2/7/4d74a6321b9927b90a5f0b48549795b68e84746742b03e5b366c66ce532e6f/nich1.gif?u=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn2.hubspot.net%2Fhub%2F452923%2Ffile-2531395011-gif%2Fblog-files%2Fnich1.gif%3Ft%3D1435876488053%26width%3D461%26height%3D280&q=0&b=1&p=0&a=0)
-
You can't have a rational, logical, constructive discussion on guns with people who don't know anything about guns other than slogans, emotions and lies.
The MSM has lied to their audiences for so long about so many issues, those consumers of that information will never admit that they are wrong or don't understand the issues involved.
"I'd answer your question, but then I'd have to explain it," is the problem. Lots of good examples on some podcasts of Liberals who flat out called someone a liar when presented facts that opposed their own beliefs fed to them by the MSM. When provided actual video evidence that was impossible to refute, some still dismissed it as fake, and others took days and several times viewing the videos to finally understand that they've been lied to for years, and they willingly believed whatever lies they were fed.
How is ANYTHING we say on the pro-2A side of the argument going to sway those kinds of people? And there are millions of those people out there.
Charlie kirk vids are a good example.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Like I said, I’m more worried about people like you. Who cares about some fringe leftist who wants to yank our second amendment when we have people like you who will just give it to them?
Nice strawman I never said they wanted to take all our rights I said they want all our guns. If you actually read what I wrote I said that the logic they’re using for gun control can be applied to all guns over time. Look at your president now talking about how 9mm will blow the lung out of the body. So rifles that shoot 5.56 and handguns that shoot 9mm are too dangerous to own now, and you wanna compromise with these people? Good grief.
These are mentally deranged individuals not special forces operators. You call the shooter “rational” yet think they would gung ho into an area where he could immediately be met with lethal resistance. There’s nothing rational about that. There’s a reason the overwhelming majority of mass shooting occur in gun free zones.
The entire constitution is absolute I don’t know where people get this idea that it isn’t. Since you wanna play this silly game, how absolute is the 19th and 13th ammendment?
Me give it to them? I am trying to stop people like you from taking the whole ship down with you.
Of course some of the arguments they could come up with could be used to take all firearms but it is a myth that those on the left all want to take all of our guns. You are just demonizing the other side with positions like that, not making any friends against the moderates.
Most of these events are planned, they make rational choices. Get guns, ammo, armor, etc. And yes, sometimes they attack targets known to have armed presence, look at Columbine, an armed cop was present and it didn't stop them. Being mentally deranged doesn't mean irrational, you are creating a false dichotomy there.
For the 13th amendment wouldn't really apply here to this conversation because that ended a practice, it didn't enshrine of right. As for the 19th amendment that is similar, it didn't enshrine a right so much as it prevented the restriction of voting based on sex. Nonetheless let's use voting here as an example. People are not allowed to vote under 18, felons are not allowed to vote in some jurisdictions, and people with certain mental handicaps are also not allowed to vote in certain jurisdictions. Let's take the fourth amendment, you don't have an absolute right against someone searching your property. Under exegent circumstances cops can search your property without first obtaining a warrant.
If the second amendment is an absolute right then that means a person of any age, of any mental capacity, any criminal record, even an incarcerated person would and should be able to own any arm they want. Unless you are prepared to defend that position then you are admitting there are limits
-
Just law firearm safety, there needs to be multiple measures in place in case 1 or 2 or 3 fail.
Madison Stone Douglas, the shooter "was left behind". He begged to return back to SPED after showing a huge decline in academics after being transferred to regular classes. The system failed him. IMO, this could have prevented the situation, because he then stopped coming to school. (downward spiral)
Columbine, the shooters were bullied and on anti depressants (which means mental help sought). So only real failure here would be if the bullying was reported and not stopped.
Sandy Hook, the shooter killed his mom and stole her guns. No real system failure.
MIT shooter, college level, IDK much details on the why. But this was the largest active shooting deaths until the Vegas shooting. 2 pistols used, 9mm and 22LR.
Ulvalde, no system failure, unless his bullying was reported and nothing was done. He had no mental health professional help sought and no felonies.
So as you can see with the school shootings listed above, sometimes there is a system failure and sometimes there isn't. So evil needs to be met ASAP. Which is why giving staff the choice to be armed IMO is the best and least cost effective thing to try. There are groups out there who will train teachers for free. Like the Ohio situation after MSD. They trained over 300 teachers in a month, all free. I can guarantee if there was a magic machine that could go back in time and give the teachers who died an option to either have a gun, gun free zone sign, or a phone when the active shooter shows up, all of them would choose a gun.
Like I said I'm not against teachers being armed. I support the practice as long as it comes with a set of regulations and required training. I am pointing out that it is not a comprehensive solution. I called it a Band-Aid and I think it is but Band-Aids have their places in first aid kits so don't think just because I said it's a Band-Aid mean it's useless
-
1) What rock you been under, if the left had their way, ALL guns would be banned.
2) Armed teachers is circular thought. So if they would be targeted 1st, then we need tanks outside the schools and barbed wire. Like Cuban banks have.
3) Enough has been taken away of the 2nd amendment that any further bans need to stop.
Not all of us have the option to being armed at work, or surrounded by a 90% armed staff. So maybe you need to think about how the rest of us regular folk are doing (I don't mean this in a mean or sarcastic way).
1) the left is not a monolithic group.
2) sorry I don't follow what you're getting at here.
3) this is too generic of a statement. Clearly we have States with significantly different gun laws.
If we can't find some way of reducing these mass shooting then I think we are eventually going to lose more of our gun rights. So I think we need a better answer than just armed teachers. I think red flag type laws, if crafted properly, maybe the solution because it does not restrict gun rights on a mass scale but instead on individual instances. If not that then we better have some other good ideas because right now it looks like we're sitting here stubbornly with our thumbs up our butts providing Band-Aid solutions
-
You can't have a rational, logical, constructive discussion on guns with people who don't know anything about guns other than slogans, emotions and lies.
The MSM has lied to their audiences for so long about so many issues, those consumers of that information will never admit that they are wrong or don't understand the issues involved.
You can, it's all in how you talk to people. Some people are harder to break through to than others but it can be done. I can tell you that insulting them just ends up fulfilling your prophecy.
-
Me give it to them? I am trying to stop people like you from taking the whole ship down with you.
Of course some of the arguments they could come up with could be used to take all firearms but it is a myth that those on the left all want to take all of our guns. You are just demonizing the other side with positions like that, not making any friends against the moderates.
Most of these events are planned, they make rational choices. Get guns, ammo, armor, etc. And yes, sometimes they attack targets known to have armed presence, look at Columbine, an armed cop was present and it didn't stop them. Being mentally deranged doesn't mean irrational, you are creating a false dichotomy there.
For the 13th amendment wouldn't really apply here to this conversation because that ended a practice, it didn't enshrine of right. As for the 19th amendment that is similar, it didn't enshrine a right so much as it prevented the restriction of voting based on sex. Nonetheless let's use voting here as an example. People are not allowed to vote under 18, felons are not allowed to vote in some jurisdictions, and people with certain mental handicaps are also not allowed to vote in certain jurisdictions. Let's take the fourth amendment, you don't have an absolute right against someone searching your property. Under exegent circumstances cops can search your property without first obtaining a warrant.
If the second amendment is an absolute right then that means a person of any age, of any mental capacity, any criminal record, even an incarcerated person would and should be able to own any arm they want. Unless you are prepared to defend that position then you are admitting there are limits
Yes, you are literally giving it to them by accepting a compromise on your rights. I’m 31 years old I’ve only been politically active for about 4 years, I was given this shitty ship because of people like you who were willing to compromise my rights away.
Strawman alert! I never said ALL wanted to take our guns. The percentage of the left that wants to take guns is irrelevant because the vast majority of them want guns banned. Your full of shit if you think that’s just a “myth”. The house Democrat official Twitter account just tweeted out that they think all semiautomatic rifles should be banned. How long until they classify glocks or semiautomatic handguns as “weapons of war that should also be banned” which by the way are responsible for wayyyyy more deaths than ALL rifles combined. Myth my ass. Then when a shooter uses a revolver with a ten round cylinder with speed loaders and kills a bunch of people they’ll come after that too. So we went from a “reasonable” ban on automatics to only being able to own single shot rifles and pistols. I’m not demonizing anyone I’m simply putting the pieces of their arguments together to form a clearer picture of what’s in store for the future of gun rights.
Show me where in my response did I say that because they are mentally deranged they are irrational? I never said that. You said they are making rational decisions and I agreed with you which is why I don’t think they’ll run into an area with CC personnel. Having CC personnel prohibits them from planning an attack. I’ve already explained that armed guards are a bad idea because they can plan around the guard or just kill him first.
All amendments “ended a practice” and they all “enshrined” a right. That didn’t even make sense. Try and actually read the 15th amendment no where does it specify any of the examples you gave. The 4th amendment doesn’t say a warrant is needed to search. If it did you’d have a point, but it doesn’t so you don’t. The wording unreasonable obviously gives the government some wiggle room as the term reasonable could be subjective I assume, but it’s atleast in the wording.
No actually I don’t need to defend any of your silly examples. Kids are under the age of consent and mentally incapable people should be locked up. None of those are gun issues. Any free man should have full rights restored regardless of record.
-
Yes, you are literally giving it to them by accepting a compromise on your rights. I’m 31 years old I’ve only been politically active for about 4 years, I was given this shitty ship because of people like you who were willing to compromise my rights away.
Strawman alert! I never said ALL wanted to take our guns. The percentage of the left that wants to take guns is irrelevant because the vast majority of them want guns banned. Your full of shit if you think that’s just a “myth”. The house Democrat official Twitter account just tweeted out that they think all semiautomatic rifles should be banned. How long until they classify glocks or semiautomatic handguns as “weapons of war that should also be banned” which by the way are responsible for wayyyyy more deaths than ALL rifles combined. Myth my ass. Then when a shooter uses a revolver with a ten round cylinder with speed loaders and kills a bunch of people they’ll come after that too. So we went from a “reasonable” ban on automatics to only being able to own single shot rifles and pistols. I’m not demonizing anyone I’m simply putting the pieces of their arguments together to form a clearer picture of what’s in store for the future of gun rights.
Show me where in my response did I say that because they are mentally deranged they are irrational? I never said that. You said they are making rational decisions and I agreed with you which is why I don’t think they’ll run into an area with CC personnel. Having CC personnel prohibits them from planning an attack. I’ve already explained that armed guards are a bad idea because they can plan around the guard or just kill him first.
All amendments “ended a practice” and they all “enshrined” a right. That didn’t even make sense. Try and actually read the 15th amendment no where does it specify any of the examples you gave. The 4th amendment doesn’t say a warrant is needed to search. If it did you’d have a point, but it doesn’t so you don’t. The wording unreasonable obviously gives the government some wiggle room as the term reasonable could be subjective I assume, but it’s atleast in the wording.
No actually I don’t need to defend any of your silly examples. Kids are under the age of consent and mentally incapable people should be locked up. None of those are gun issues. Any free man should have full rights restored regardless of record.
" I’m 31 years old I’ve only been politically active for about 4 years, I was given this shitty ship because of people like you who were willing to compromise my rights away."
What took you so long?
I was in the second grade when LBJ was elected and I knew he was a POS
and bad for our rights.
My mother and step father at the time never discussed politics.
I could just sense danger/evil better than most people.
You cannot compromise with Democrats.
>:D
-
Wow this is a great video that explains a lot of societal problems.
It's only 5 minutes long, so watch it.
https://youtu.be/OFpYj0E-yb4
-
1) the left is not a monolithic group.
2) sorry I don't follow what you're getting at here.
3) this is too generic of a statement. Clearly we have States with significantly different gun laws.
If we can't find some way of reducing these mass shooting then I think we are eventually going to lose more of our gun rights. So I think we need a better answer than just armed teachers. I think red flag type laws, if crafted properly, maybe the solution because it does not restrict gun rights on a mass scale but instead on individual instances. If not that then we better have some other good ideas because right now it looks like we're sitting here stubbornly with our thumbs up our butts providing Band-Aid solutions
Still waiting for your response to this . . . ::)
Not all of us have the option to being armed at work, or surrounded by a 90% armed staff. So maybe you need to think about how the rest of us regular folk are doing (I don't mean this in a mean or sarcastic way).
Also assuming you are in possession when not on duty
-
You can, it's all in how you talk to people. Some people are harder to break through to than others but it can be done. I can tell you that insulting them just ends up fulfilling your prophecy.
You obviously haven't tried your method with many on the far Left.
Talking to them about guns and the 2A rights of Americans is like trying to explain anything to you. You deal in absolutes: Not necessarily, not all, not everyone, not the entire party, etc, etc. Those are straw arguments that nobody here posted. What we are saying is the overwhelming majority adhere to our opinions of their beliefs and behaviors. You like to ague, so you focus on the one-offs and minorities that, if their minds were to change, solves nothing.
The majority still remains unconvinced.
-
1) the left is not a monolithic group.
2) sorry I don't follow what you're getting at here.
3) this is too generic of a statement. Clearly we have States with significantly different gun laws.
If we can't find some way of reducing these mass shooting then I think we are eventually going to lose more of our gun rights. So I think we need a better answer than just armed teachers. I think red flag type laws, if crafted properly, maybe the solution because it does not restrict gun rights on a mass scale but instead on individual instances. If not that then we better have some other good ideas because right now it looks like we're sitting here stubbornly with our thumbs up our butts providing Band-Aid solutions
There are approximately 35,000 deaths per year in which a firearm played a roll. According to the
FBI there were 85 deaths in 2018 in active shooter situations. 85/35000 = .0024% of “gun deaths”
were from “mass shootings”
Why are you focused on mass shootings? Because the narrative is being dictated by the anti-gun groups and the media.
.0024% == Percentage of gun deaths in a year from mass shootings compared to all gun deaths.
Again, you are focused on the minority and looking for a solution while ignoring the carnage of all other gun-related deaths.
Ask yourself why that's not a logical approach to saving lives.
-
1) the left is not a monolithic group.
2) sorry I don't follow what you're getting at here.
3) this is too generic of a statement. Clearly we have States with significantly different gun laws.
If we can't find some way of reducing these mass shooting then I think we are eventually going to lose more of our gun rights. So I think we need a better answer than just armed teachers. I think red flag type laws, if crafted properly, maybe the solution because it does not restrict gun rights on a mass scale but instead on individual instances. If not that then we better have some other good ideas because right now it looks like we're sitting here stubbornly with our thumbs up our butts providing Band-Aid solutions
1) The common thing the left have is they want to take some of the 2a right away for now (assault rifles, standard cap mags, bump stocks, P80's, etc...). If this was done, then the next logical step is handguns because that accounts for way more annual deaths than "assault rifles". If you cannot see their plan, this is why I'm telling it to you. If you think they aren't that powerful either, just remember we are always an active shooting away from more laws because anti 2a people use emotion and not facts to get stuff passed. Refer to yesterdays house vote in DC and NY's soft armor ban (they used the NY market shooting as the main reason)
2) My reply was to yours that stated "Armed teachers would have some advantage in not being marked targets but they would still be prime targets" (assuming they are open carrying). "Any rational shooter would first target the guards, then any adults, and then the children. " This next statement implies there is no benefit/win. Which is why I brought up guarding the buildings with armored vehicles like banks in Cuba does. Then you may bring up what if RPG types are used against said armored vehicles. So circular thought.
3) It is not a generic statement. Look at all the federal laws that passed in the past 30 years or the ones they have tried to pass. Lets also use what is usually the most pro 2A state when brought up into conversation (Texas). Certain cities have no guns allowed signs that have the weight of the law behind them. So if you do not leave your gun in the car, you can be arrested. Compare this to Nevada that their gun free zones have no weight of the law behind them. And can you honestly say that any of the 50 states passed/tried zero new anti gun laws in the past 30 years? So it isn't a generic statement.
1 way we tried to reduce active shootings is with gun free signs. Apparently this doesn't work well enough because they still happen and at large scales of deaths until a good guy (civilian included) with a gun shows up. And the media uses these events to get feelings involved so law makers pass more gun laws. And since we cannot take 100% of guns away, lets try something that we haven't tried before. Reduce the gun laws. Specifically, let people who are allowed to own guns carry where ever they want. Then if this doesn't show signs of reducing the damage done by active shooters, we can think of something else to do.
When Florida became a shall issue CCW state, they wanted to keep a 10 year study on how it affects crime rates. Every year crime dropped and kept dropping. So much that they called the study off after 7 years or so.
" I think red flag type laws, if crafted properly, maybe the solution because it does not restrict gun rights on a mass scale but instead on individual instances". Do you not know how red flag law currently works? LMK and I can explain how it is on an individual instance.
" If not that then we better have some other good ideas because right now it looks like we're sitting here stubbornly with our thumbs up our butts providing Band-Aid solutions". I mentioned my good idea, but the left will never allow it.
-
Why are you focused on mass shootings? Because the narrative is being dictated by the anti-gun groups and the media.
.0024% == Percentage of gun deaths in a year from mass shootings compared to all gun deaths.
Again, you are focused on the minority and looking for a solution while ignoring the carnage of all other gun-related deaths.
Ask yourself why that's not a logical approach to saving lives.
What is the number of innocent people being killed by police guns? As in the person standing 40 feet behind who the cops were shooting at, or they got the wrong house and killed the homeowner/resident. Don't count if someone escalated a situation where the cops shot.
-
Plus armed teachers would rarely prevent a shooting, just end it sooner.
If that's the perspective your holding, then it's clear why you can't find the answers your looking for.
Short of the minority report(thought crimes), you can't prevent people from doing bad things, no matter how hard you try.
Like you said, all you can do is end it sooner.
The sooner a law abiding citizen arrives with a firearm, the sooner it will be ended.
Still trying to dance around it I see
-
Still trying to dance around it I see
TX church shooter comes to mind. He killed 1 person with his shotgun and as he ran toward more people, he was stopped with a headshot within seconds by an NRA instructor from probably 20 yards away. What if this armed good guy instead of having his pistol, he had a gun free zone sign instead?
-
Tired of having the same stupid conversation over and over again?
Ask yourself what we are not allowed to talk about.
(https://americasfreedomfighters.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/picisto-20150621192537-705568.jpg)
https://americasfreedomfighters.com/every-mass-shooting-in-the-last-20-years-has-one-thing-in-common-and-its-not-just-weapons-3/
-
" I’m 31 years old I’ve only been politically active for about 4 years, I was given this shitty ship because of people like you who were willing to compromise my rights away."
What took you so long?
I was in the second grade when LBJ was elected and I knew he was a POS
and bad for our rights.
My mother and step father at the time never discussed politics.
I could just sense danger/evil better than most people.
You cannot compromise with Democrats.
>:D
The vast majority of kids who grow up in Hawaii don’t care about politics. We never discussed politics at the dinner table. I remember maybe one conversation in my childhood I asked what the difference between democrats and republicans were and my mom told me “democrats were for the people and republicans were for businesses”. I grew up a democrat socialist until I had my first kid and when that happened I could no longer believe in the fantasies that ideology promised. Hopefully my kids will grow up as conservative as me.
-
Tired of having the same stupid conversation over and over again?
Ask yourself what we are not allowed to talk about.
(https://americasfreedomfighters.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/picisto-20150621192537-705568.jpg)
https://americasfreedomfighters.com/every-mass-shooting-in-the-last-20-years-has-one-thing-in-common-and-its-not-just-weapons-3/
They left out Columbine, Madison Stone Douglas, and Vegas.
-
You obviously haven't tried your method with many on the far Left.
Talking to them about guns and the 2A rights of Americans is like trying to explain anything to you. You deal in absolutes: Not necessarily, not all, not everyone, not the entire party, etc, etc. Those are straw arguments that nobody here posted. What we are saying is the overwhelming majority adhere to our opinions of their beliefs and behaviors. You like to ague, so you focus on the one-offs and minorities that, if their minds were to change, solves nothing.
The majority still remains unconvinced.
You claim I am the one who deals in absolutes yet you are the one who is saying they can't be reasoned with.... Oh the irony!
It is important to recognize that they are not a monolithic group. If you treat them as all the same, all just gun grabbers then any interaction is already painted negatively, starting with negative assumptions. None of that leads to open minds.
I have talked with people on the left on this issue and discussions with people on other topics who are on the opposite ends. That's why I know what doesn't work. Your attitude creates a self fulfilling prophecy.
-
Tired of having the same stupid conversation over and over again?
Ask yourself what we are not allowed to talk about.
(https://americasfreedomfighters.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/picisto-20150621192537-705568.jpg)
https://americasfreedomfighters.com/every-mass-shooting-in-the-last-20-years-has-one-thing-in-common-and-its-not-just-weapons-3/
I think one of the issues there is that causation is difficult to prove. Are psychotropic drugs causing these problems or are they just being used to treat people who have these problems already?
How are we not allowed to talk about it though?
-
Yes, you are literally giving it to them by accepting a compromise on your rights. I’m 31 years old I’ve only been politically active for about 4 years, I was given this shitty ship because of people like you who were willing to compromise my rights away.
Strawman alert! I never said ALL wanted to take our guns. The percentage of the left that wants to take guns is irrelevant because the vast majority of them want guns banned. Your full of shit if you think that’s just a “myth”. The house Democrat official Twitter account just tweeted out that they think all semiautomatic rifles should be banned. How long until they classify glocks or semiautomatic handguns as “weapons of war that should also be banned” which by the way are responsible for wayyyyy more deaths than ALL rifles combined. Myth my ass. Then when a shooter uses a revolver with a ten round cylinder with speed loaders and kills a bunch of people they’ll come after that too. So we went from a “reasonable” ban on automatics to only being able to own single shot rifles and pistols. I’m not demonizing anyone I’m simply putting the pieces of their arguments together to form a clearer picture of what’s in store for the future of gun rights.
Show me where in my response did I say that because they are mentally deranged they are irrational? I never said that. You said they are making rational decisions and I agreed with you which is why I don’t think they’ll run into an area with CC personnel. Having CC personnel prohibits them from planning an attack. I’ve already explained that armed guards are a bad idea because they can plan around the guard or just kill him first.
All amendments “ended a practice” and they all “enshrined” a right. That didn’t even make sense. Try and actually read the 15th amendment no where does it specify any of the examples you gave. The 4th amendment doesn’t say a warrant is needed to search. If it did you’d have a point, but it doesn’t so you don’t. The wording unreasonable obviously gives the government some wiggle room as the term reasonable could be subjective I assume, but it’s atleast in the wording.
No actually I don’t need to defend any of your silly examples. Kids are under the age of consent and mentally incapable people should be locked up. None of those are gun issues. Any free man should have full rights restored regardless of record.
You don't have to say ALL, the problem is when somebody makes a general statement describing a wide swath of the population. You inherently end up making inaccurate statements about a lot of people. Yes some people on the left see gun control as an incremental step towards eliminating all guns but there are many many people on the left who still favor private firearm ownership. If you make a blanket statement then you end up insulting all those people who only want some moderate step and not complete bans.
Having concealed carry personnel is not going to stop these active shooters. At most it just makes planning a little more difficult.
No the 4th amendment does not specifically say a warrant has to be issued but the process it describes is that of a warrant.
Calling my examples silly looks like just an excuse to not have to answer something with an uncomfortable conclusion. You are right that those examples weren't specifically gun issues, those examples were presented to you to illustrate how all rights have some limits. We limit certain rights to people based on age, mental capacity, and incarceration status.
US Constitution makes no mention of age of any kind that I can find (with regard to rights) yet we say that people under 18 can be denied certain rights. It also makes no mention of mental capacity. Either rights have limits or they don't, you can't have it both ways.
-
Why are you focused on mass shootings? Because the narrative is being dictated by the anti-gun groups and the media.
.0024% == Percentage of gun deaths in a year from mass shootings compared to all gun deaths.
Again, you are focused on the minority and looking for a solution while ignoring the carnage of all other gun-related deaths.
Ask yourself why that's not a logical approach to saving lives.
That's whataboutism.
Gang violence, domestic violence, and active shooter violence are all separate topics, each with their own unique situations and approaches required to address them. Acting as if school shootings are not a problem because they only represent a small fraction of the gun homicides every year is extremely cold-hearted position to take. One can discuss active shooters independent of other types of shootings. Even if we had solved gang violence this would still be a problem facing our society and that's enough to talk about it
-
1) The common thing the left have is they want to take some of the 2a right away for now (assault rifles, standard cap mags, bump stocks, P80's, etc...). If this was done, then the next logical step is handguns because that accounts for way more annual deaths than "assault rifles". If you cannot see their plan, this is why I'm telling it to you. If you think they aren't that powerful either, just remember we are always an active shooting away from more laws because anti 2a people use emotion and not facts to get stuff passed. Refer to yesterdays house vote in DC and NY's soft armor ban (they used the NY market shooting as the main reason)
2) My reply was to yours that stated "Armed teachers would have some advantage in not being marked targets but they would still be prime targets" (assuming they are open carrying). "Any rational shooter would first target the guards, then any adults, and then the children. " This next statement implies there is no benefit/win. Which is why I brought up guarding the buildings with armored vehicles like banks in Cuba does. Then you may bring up what if RPG types are used against said armored vehicles. So circular thought.
3) It is not a generic statement. Look at all the federal laws that passed in the past 30 years or the ones they have tried to pass. Lets also use what is usually the most pro 2A state when brought up into conversation (Texas). Certain cities have no guns allowed signs that have the weight of the law behind them. So if you do not leave your gun in the car, you can be arrested. Compare this to Nevada that their gun free zones have no weight of the law behind them. And can you honestly say that any of the 50 states passed/tried zero new anti gun laws in the past 30 years? So it isn't a generic statement.
1 way we tried to reduce active shootings is with gun free signs. Apparently this doesn't work well enough because they still happen and at large scales of deaths until a good guy (civilian included) with a gun shows up. And the media uses these events to get feelings involved so law makers pass more gun laws. And since we cannot take 100% of guns away, lets try something that we haven't tried before. Reduce the gun laws. Specifically, let people who are allowed to own guns carry where ever they want. Then if this doesn't show signs of reducing the damage done by active shooters, we can think of something else to do.
When Florida became a shall issue CCW state, they wanted to keep a 10 year study on how it affects crime rates. Every year crime dropped and kept dropping. So much that they called the study off after 7 years or so.
" I think red flag type laws, if crafted properly, maybe the solution because it does not restrict gun rights on a mass scale but instead on individual instances". Do you not know how red flag law currently works? LMK and I can explain how it is on an individual instance.
" If not that then we better have some other good ideas because right now it looks like we're sitting here stubbornly with our thumbs up our butts providing Band-Aid solutions". I mentioned my good idea, but the left will never allow it.
1) For some yes, every gun control idea is a step towards a logical end of zero firearms. But for others this is not the case. I've known many people who could be characterized as on the left and want some gun control but who do not want anything near complete bans.
2) I see what you are getting at but that is not where I was going. What I meant was that if I was going to shoot up a classroom I would always target the teacher before I targeted any students. Security first then any adult staff then children would be the most logical attack hierarchy.
3) gun laws very widely from state to state so it's hard to make any blanket statements about gun laws, that's what I was getting at. Here in Hawaii we definitely have enough of our gun rights restricted where is Texas has it much less restricted. So in other words your statement could be both true or false depending on the jurisdiction in question.
Red flags are just an idea for a legal framework. Again it depends on the jurisdiction, with each one implementing the idea a little differently. Hear the specifics matter and whether it would be effective and whether it be constitutional in terms of protecting the rights of the accused. Again you can't make a blanket statement about red flag laws.
Again like I said I do support training teachers and allowing them to carry if they want to Cary firearms.
-
Still trying to dance around it I see
Not dancing around anything, your statement is wrong.
There are ways of preventing people from doing bad things. Laws for starters, if theft were no longer illegal do you really think nothing would change? Look up what is happening in San Francisco when these guys won't get punished for shoplifting.
But since that's probably not what you were getting at let's set that aside. There are still ways of preventing people from doing bad things they're just more complicated than a law saying don't do that. Specifically programs and social support structures and mental health aide that can address the problems these people have before it gets to the extent where they decide to kill a bunch of strangers. Would be active shooters have been prevented before so you can't claim nothing would ever stop them.
-
It doesn’t matter how smart you are unless you stop and think.
#thomassowell
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
-
There is no solution that will solve all problems 100%. They don't exist. They never did. What we can do is implement the best action and endlessly strive to improve on it.
With that being said I think there are people out there (activists and political hypocrites) that will not be satisfied until all guns are eliminated from law abiding citizens.
And hereby lies the problem.
In my opinion these people know that armed citizens can and will deter future mass shootings and even crime in general. I believe they know that.
But their "agenda" does not allow it. And like I said, thereby lies the problem.
And another thing that people refuse to acknowledge is this cruel reality: Killings, murders, and crime will occur. No matter what.
The Nature of Man. Like mosquitoes and pests, we can control but we cannot eliminate.
-
Look up what is happening in San Francisco when these guys won't get punished for shoplifting.
The same people who want to take our guns away are the ones who decided to let murderers roam free
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCJ8EwNPmEI
-
1) For some yes, every gun control idea is a step towards a logical end of zero firearms. But for others this is not the case. I've known many people who could be characterized as on the left and want some gun control but who do not want anything near complete bans.
2) I see what you are getting at but that is not where I was going. What I meant was that if I was going to shoot up a classroom I would always target the teacher before I targeted any students. Security first then any adult staff then children would be the most logical attack hierarchy.
3) gun laws very widely from state to state so it's hard to make any blanket statements about gun laws, that's what I was getting at. Here in Hawaii we definitely have enough of our gun rights restricted where is Texas has it much less restricted. So in other words your statement could be both true or false depending on the jurisdiction in question.
Red flags are just an idea for a legal framework. Again it depends on the jurisdiction, with each one implementing the idea a little differently. Hear the specifics matter and whether it would be effective and whether it be constitutional in terms of protecting the rights of the accused. Again you can't make a blanket statement about red flag laws.
Again like I said I do support training teachers and allowing them to carry if they want to Cary firearms.
1) Let me rephrase, common in majority of the left since it's not 100%. Concepts are hard.
2) True if the shooter is targeting the teacher in the class, but what about the one next door who can come in to help stop it. Or wait until the shooter goes into their class and is they have gun drawn and pointing at the door. There was a 1 sided example of this done on Nightline or some other news agency. They had armed students in a college class and they were taken out by the gunman (paint was used). But what this 1 sided story left out was the class next door who will be ready as soon as they hear gun fire (aiming at the door). The element of surprise is a key factor, which is why the armed students in the class failed. Even though they knew someone was coming thru the door.
3) How is this true and false? My blanket statement was to go back 30 years and can you honestly say that no state passed no/less gun laws? The gun free zone with the weight of the law was just 1 example that I know of in TX, because I planned a trip there and had to look them up.
With Red Flag, so far all the ones put in place are violating a persons rights. Which is why the blanket statement is being used. Can you provide a form of it that would not violate 1's rights. Then maybe I will adjust the blanket statement.
-
.
-
1) Let me rephrase, common in majority of the left since it's not 100%. Concepts are hard.
2) True if the shooter is targeting the teacher in the class, but what about the one next door who can come in to help stop it. Or wait until the shooter goes into their class and is they have gun drawn and pointing at the door. There was a 1 sided example of this done on Nightline or some other news agency. They had armed students in a college class and they were taken out by the gunman (paint was used). But what this 1 sided story left out was the class next door who will be ready as soon as they hear gun fire (aiming at the door). The element of surprise is a key factor, which is why the armed students in the class failed. Even though they knew someone was coming thru the door.
3) How is this true and false? My blanket statement was to go back 30 years and can you honestly say that no state passed no/less gun laws? The gun free zone with the weight of the law was just 1 example that I know of in TX, because I planned a trip there and had to look them up.
With Red Flag, so far all the ones put in place are violating a persons rights. Which is why the blanket statement is being used. Can you provide a form of it that would not violate 1's rights. Then maybe I will adjust the blanket statement.
1). After I replied I went and did some looking at poll data. I was unable to find any poll data that showed how many people want complete bans on firearms. I found people on the left were more likely to favor background checks and other increased forms of gun control, but no data to suggest that the majority of democrats want all guns banned. You and a few others have stated the majority of them want guns banned but I can't find any data supporting that position. Not saying it doesn't exist just trying to establish whether that statement is factually supported or not.
2) as I said I think arming teachers could help. It brings new complications of course but it could help to stop an active shooter. I just don't think it is THE answer, it is just a piece in a puzzle, one part in a more comprehensive solution.
3) sorry am I not sure where you are going with that. IIRC some states have seen a reduction in gun laws such as going to constitutional carry and such.
For red flag laws I think there would be disagreement as to whether a person's rights are necessarily being violated. It all depends on the nature of how it is done. Is there evidence for action? Is there a burden of proof? Is there due process protections and speedy processes? If all of these are present then rights are protected but if they are absent then rights are not protected. I think Hawaii's law has a few problems but with a few changes it could come into line as being constitutional. Most specifically reducing the period to where a person gets their day in court to 48 hours.
I pointed out earlier how retraining orders encroach more on an individual's rights than red flag laws. Do you leave TROs are unconstitutional?
-
The same people who want to take our guns away are the ones who decided to let murderers roam free
True, and it supports my point.
-
It doesn’t matter how smart you are unless you stop and think.
#thomassowell
Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk
A very good point.
You can have two very smart people in a heated argument and they will never get anywhere because they are in an excited state. Sometimes they may even have a lot of common ground but they can't stop to realize it.
-
I think more people should think before they open their trap.
Myself included.
-
You claim I am the one who deals in absolutes yet you are the one who is saying they can't be reasoned with.... Oh the irony!
It is important to recognize that they are not a monolithic group. If you treat them as all the same, all just gun grabbers then any interaction is already painted negatively, starting with negative assumptions. None of that leads to open minds.
I have talked with people on the left on this issue and discussions with people on other topics who are on the opposite ends. That's why I know what doesn't work. Your attitude creates a self fulfilling prophecy.
Try reading ALL MY WORDS, not just the ones you need to make a stupid argument.
"You obviously haven't tried your method with many on the far Left.
Talking to them..."
"Them" refers to "many on the far Left." Are you unable to comprehend plain English? Or just too obtuse to give anyone an honest response?
-
Me give it to them? I am trying to stop people like you from taking the whole ship down with you.
Of course some of the arguments they could come up with could be used to take all firearms but it is a myth that those on the left all want to take all of our guns. You are just demonizing the other side with positions like that, not making any friends against the moderates.
Bullcrap!
I guess you believe everyone in Congress who wants to take guns is as overt and vocal as Feinstein. Their desire to ban and confiscate all guns except for military and police is NOT a myth.
Wake up and accept what these people are telling you ...
https://youtu.be/ffI-tWh37UY
https://youtu.be/8AH7pUGsHAY
-
(https://thefederalistpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/meme23.jpg)
-
They dont want to take your guns. Source, local anti 2a march in waikiki today.(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220612/cedcddd7c5e4b1c7bb972c28e4bac0a0.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220612/dfd03bb6ce82b52a88d65a45e7d3f8ef.jpg)
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
(https://thefederalistpapers.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/meme23.jpg)
Isn't what the laws in Hawaii already do? :wacko:
-
They dont want to take your guns. Source, local anti 2a march in waikiki today.(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220612/cedcddd7c5e4b1c7bb972c28e4bac0a0.jpg)(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220612/dfd03bb6ce82b52a88d65a45e7d3f8ef.jpg)
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
Seems like the sheep are close to getting what they want.
Hope when the wolves come to get them they understand that the wolves might still be armed and the sheepdogs are defenseless with no way to help.
But maybe that's what the sheep want anyway. They are known to be stupid animals.
What goes around comes around.
-
1 person talked to was at the Pearl Harbor shooting. U know, the one where a service member on guard duty went crazy. The ones who the left say are the only ones who should have assault rifles.
Anyways when asked if he would have liked to have a gun too during the shooting, he stopped talking and walked away.(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20220612/01d93d1aeaf88592f5e7ccc379215587.jpg)
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Bullcrap!
I guess you believe everyone in Congress who wants to take guns is as overt and vocal as Feinstein. Their desire to ban and confiscate all guns except for military and police is NOT a myth.
Wake up and accept what these people are telling you ...
Can you prove it? Aside from a few anecdotal senators of course? You are making the claim, you are well aware of the burden of proof so please present the data showing the vast majority of democrats want to ban all guns.
-
Try reading ALL MY WORDS, not just the ones you need to make a stupid argument.
"You obviously haven't tried your method with many on the far Left.
Talking to them..."
"Them" refers to "many on the far Left." Are you unable to comprehend plain English? Or just too obtuse to give anyone an honest response?
I have talked with many on the far left. All but a very few were able to have a calm productive conversation.
I think the problem lies with you. No offense but you aren't exactly known around here for being one to communicate well in this matter. It doesn't surprise me that you think it never works because they way you talk to people you disagree with hampers open dialogue. It's a self fulfilling prophecy.
-
I think more people should think before they open their trap.
Myself included.
Same here, but I am getting better at it as I get older
-
While there are vids of a bunch of liberals stating a wanting to take all guns away (not all libs), its common sense really. Right now, ban the assault rifle. The object that has less than 400 deaths a year. Less than because the FBI and CDC stats combine all (bolt action) rifles used in murders.
While handguns are 6000. So logic dictates handguns should be next due to the way higher number. And by then, it will be too late. Theyre already freaking out over 400 annual deaths and rarely if not at all report on annual pistol deaths. In fact ask anyone protesting against the 2a if they know a ballpark figure about the above. I have yet to meet 1 person who knows the stats.
This is a clear long term plan the DNC has.if they did cold turkey, then a huge up roar would take place. But chip away a little by little. Start with the scary assault rilfe that has less justification to be taken away.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Kinda like the frog sitting in water that is slowly being heated up. Frog doesn't notice and still doesn't even when it dies.
-
Kinda like the frog sitting in water that is slowly being heated up. Frog doesn't notice and still doesn't even when it dies.
That is called "incrementalism".
Most things in life you have to compromise on.
Even with smart, but irrational Libs.
Keep in mind there are somethings you do not comprise on.
Our rights as enumerated in the bill of rights are some of them.
Period.
Y'all got social problems, you caused them, YOU fix them.
I don't care about you Progressives.
But your rights to take a swing, stop at my nose.
And I'm willing to put out that fire heating up the pot of water I'm sitting in.
Rivet, Rivet.
:grrr:
-
I have talked with many on the far left. All but a very few were able to have a calm productive conversation.
I think the problem lies with you. No offense but you aren't exactly known around here for being one to communicate well in this matter. It doesn't surprise me that you think it never works because they way you talk to people you disagree with hampers open dialogue. It's a self fulfilling prophecy.
Says the diplomat!
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
-
Says the diplomat!
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Indeed.
Or maybe you are right, maybe they are so stubborn and can't listen to reason... But then they probably say the same thing about you. Have you checked your own eye for a log first?
-
While there are vids of a bunch of liberals stating a wanting to take all guns away (not all libs), its common sense really. Right now, ban the assault rifle. The object that has less than 400 deaths a year. Less than because the FBI and CDC stats combine all (bolt action) rifles used in murders.
While handguns are 6000. So logic dictates handguns should be next due to the way higher number. And by then, it will be too late. Theyre already freaking out over 400 annual deaths and rarely if not at all report on annual pistol deaths. In fact ask anyone protesting against the 2a if they know a ballpark figure about the above. I have yet to meet 1 person who knows the stats.
This is a clear long term plan the DNC has.if they did cold turkey, then a huge up roar would take place. But chip away a little by little. Start with the scary assault rilfe that has less justification to be taken away.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
You are still making assumptions about the intent of huge swaths of this country. You can say you suspect they really just want to take away all guns but saying it as if it were a fact is simply unsupported as of this point in the discussion. If you can find polling data to suggest otherwise then by all means.
As for freaking out over a rifles more than pistols, consider that these active School shootings that often involve rifles are killings of innocent children. Compare that to the majority of handgun murders which are gang related, criminals killing criminals. We can say a life lost is all the same but realistically few people shed tears when a gang banger gets murdered compared to a young child.
On a side note, the stats list over a thousand gun deaths as unknown which means that the death by rifles number could be much higher than the 400 or so. However if you added that 1000 to the known rifle murders it would still be much smaller than handguns. Just want to give that context.
Also, I wanted to correct an claim I have seen repeated a number of times here, that being that over the years they have never been compromises, just one side giving up things. I was having a discussion with a gun control advocate and that was explaining to him why we fear incremental gun control. I went looking for a link to list the numerous federal firearms laws that have slowly chipped away rights and I found that in fact there were compromises in some of these bills, some protections given to the gun rights community
https://time.com/5169210/us-gun-control-laws-history-timeline/
-
You are still making assumptions about the intent of huge swaths of this country. You can say you suspect they really just want to take away all guns but saying it as if it were a fact is simply unsupported as of this point in the discussion. If you can find polling data to suggest otherwise then by all means.
As for freaking out over a rifles more than pistols, consider that these active School shootings that often involve rifles are killings of innocent children. Compare that to the majority of handgun murders which are gang related, criminals killing criminals. We can say a life lost is all the same but realistically few people shed tears when a gang banger gets murdered compared to a young child.
On a side note, the stats list over a thousand gun deaths as unknown which means that the death by rifles number could be much higher than the 400 or so. However if you added that 1000 to the known rifle murders it would still be much smaller than handguns. Just want to give that context.
Also, I wanted to correct an claim I have seen repeated a number of times here, that being that over the years they have never been compromises, just one side giving up things. I was having a discussion with a gun control advocate and that was explaining to him why we fear incremental gun control. I went looking for a link to list the numerous federal firearms laws that have slowly chipped away rights and I found that in fact there were compromises in some of these bills, some protections given to the gun rights community
https://time.com/5169210/us-gun-control-laws-history-timeline/
Is it an assumption? 1 can logically assume that HI will not issue any CCW permits because none have been issued in over 15 years. But the law doesn't state we are a non-issue state. But instead a "may issue". Which means if someone applies today, they may get 1 right? Or at least have a chance to be issued 1. So if we use your POV, then HI might issue a CCW permit today.
If we look at the history of what guns laws were passed in the last 50 years, can you honestly say that they're not chipping away (frog in hot water reference). Logic dictates my stance that I posted about. Same logic applies when these anti 2a are asked in interviews what an "assault rifle" is that they want to ban. And so on. If 1 wants to ban something, 1 should know a little about them. This way they can make an educated decision on the item they want to ban.
You too are assuming that it's majority gang/criminals killed. How do you know that the person didn't make the choice to turn their life around and they were on the way to a job interview or to their leader of the gang to tell them they want out. Or is your statement based on once a criminal/banger, always a criminal/banger? If it is, then your POV is correct. But your POV also should be adjsuted because there are many criminals/ex-bangers who turned their life around and help others. Larry Lawton as an example.
How do the people keeping track know the person was at that moment of death was in a gang? Is there a membership card or an online data base that is up to date within seconds that the person was an active gang member (see example above about going to the leader to exit the gang).
Then there is the annual "Assault Weapons Ban" bill in DC that almost all DNC reps sign on to support. This names every make and model of semi auto rifles. So say in their perfect world, all these were banned with no grandfather clause. And pistols are now used to do active shootings (like MIT that killed over 30 people and the highest school shooting deaths and 2nd death rates after the Vegas shooting), can you honestly say they will not come for handguns next?
For your federal list, were these laws passed because the pro2a side came to the board, or they were in reaction to anti 2a bills? You also left out HI. What has HI done to "compromise"?
*Edit
Also is there documentation of every person who created the bill of rights all stating on record (name and official statement) that it relates to weapons? I mean, 1 guy didn't actually mean to have arms of a bear (animal). If the answer is no, then you too and so is everyone else assuming things. See I can make stuff up too.
-
I have talked with many on the far left. All but a very few were able to have a calm productive conversation.
I think the problem lies with you. No offense but you aren't exactly known around here for being one to communicate well in this matter.
-
Wow. You folks gotta lot of conversations going on your conversation.
But just cause it was mentioned more than once.
I think the MIT shooting was actually the Virginia Tech shooting. (VT)
9mm and .22.
-
Wow. You folks gotta lot of conversations going on your conversation.
But just cause it was mentioned more than once.
I think the MIT shooting was actually the Virginia Tech shooting. (VT)
9mm and .22.
No Focus if it's the Korean guy. Walther and Glock IIRC.
-
You are still making assumptions about the intent of huge swaths of this country.
I'm confidently making the assumption that a lot of surrender monkeys aren't going to be around much longer after repeated boosting experimental drugs, and the ones who manage to survive will be a lot less prone to whining.
We just have to hold out until then
(https://s2.qwant.com/thumbr/0x380/5/6/185546cd0a130aa46df1e40f01dff5a2e6d16322fe87f3ef081e4466825451/Justin-Bieber-Cancels-World-Tour-Reveals-His-Face-is-Paralyzed.jpg?u=https%3A%2F%2Ffreedomrockradio.co%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2022%2F06%2FJustin-Bieber-Cancels-World-Tour-Reveals-His-Face-is-Paralyzed.jpg&q=0&b=1&p=0&a=0)
-
I think the problem lies with you. No offense but you aren't exactly known around here for being one to communicate well in this matter.
Maybe I am wrong, maybe the method I preach isn't as effective as I claim. But wouldn't that then prove a bunch of people here fall into that group of people too closed minded to talk to?
-
Is it an assumption? 1 can logically assume that HI will not issue any CCW permits because none have been issued in over 15 years. But the law doesn't state we are a non-issue state. But instead a "may issue". Which means if someone applies today, they may get 1 right? Or at least have a chance to be issued 1. So if we use your POV, then HI might issue a CCW permit today.
If we look at the history of what guns laws were passed in the last 50 years, can you honestly say that they're not chipping away (frog in hot water reference). Logic dictates my stance that I posted about. Same logic applies when these anti 2a are asked in interviews what an "assault rifle" is that they want to ban. And so on. If 1 wants to ban something, 1 should know a little about them. This way they can make an educated decision on the item they want to ban.
You too are assuming that it's majority gang/criminals killed. How do you know that the person didn't make the choice to turn their life around and they were on the way to a job interview or to their leader of the gang to tell them they want out. Or is your statement based on once a criminal/banger, always a criminal/banger? If it is, then your POV is correct. But your POV also should be adjsuted because there are many criminals/ex-bangers who turned their life around and help others. Larry Lawton as an example.
How do the people keeping track know the person was at that moment of death was in a gang? Is there a membership card or an online data base that is up to date within seconds that the person was an active gang member (see example above about going to the leader to exit the gang).
Then there is the annual "Assault Weapons Ban" bill in DC that almost all DNC reps sign on to support. This names every make and model of semi auto rifles. So say in their perfect world, all these were banned with no grandfather clause. And pistols are now used to do active shootings (like MIT that killed over 30 people and the highest school shooting deaths and 2nd death rates after the Vegas shooting), can you honestly say they will not come for handguns next?
For your federal list, were these laws passed because the pro2a side came to the board, or they were in reaction to anti 2a bills? You also left out HI. What has HI done to "compromise"?
*Edit
Also is there documentation of every person who created the bill of rights all stating on record (name and official statement) that it relates to weapons? I mean, 1 guy didn't actually mean to have arms of a bear (animal). If the answer is no, then you too and so is everyone else assuming things. See I can make stuff up too.
When you say that they just are working towards eventual complete bans you are making a statement about intentions and doing so without strong evidence. The best argument you could make are small steps over the course of many years which somewhat restricted firearm rights but the problem with that is that you can't determine the intent of somebody now based on what has been done for decades before. I understand the fear of incremental steps towards a complete revocation of our rights, it is a reasonable fear and something to want to resist. However there simply does not appear to be enough evidence to support a claim about the intent of the majority of the left half of this country.
Do you watch nuance bro? One of his recent episodes he interviewed anti-gun protesters outside of the NRA convention. There were a few people present who voiced support for some forms of gun control but who also explicitly stated they believed in some forms of private firearm ownership. I have found quite a number of people like this, not for complete bans just for certain regulations. Are they all just lying? Sure I suppose that's possible data to support that belief is lacking.
I think you are diving too deep into my comments about gang violence. That comment was about why gang violence doesn't get the national attention that active shooters get. The image doesn't evoke as much emotion, and it is also more foreign to the rest of the country since most people don't live on those terrible streets. But everyone has or knows innocent kids who go to school so these mass shootings understandably get much more attention. It's not meant as an indictment of people in gangs or judging their life choices.
I was talking about Federal laws because those are the ones that affect everyone. Maybe in Hawaii we can talk about how much of our rights got taken away but people in Texas wouldn't be able to make that same complaint so I was referencing laws that affect everyone overall, federal laws. I don't know the specifics of each bill without digging deep into them. I only discovered that it was inaccurate to claim that our rights only get smaller and smaller when sometimes they did get beefed up, such as the law that bans a federal database.
As for pistols I recall people wanting to restrict those for quite some time. That's nothing new and it's not contingent on first banning semi-automatic rifles. I think we're getting too far off topic here though. The point I was making was merely that there are gun control groups who want to pass legislation aimed at reducing gang violence too, not merely active shooter violence.
-
When you say that they just are working towards eventual complete bans you are making a statement about intentions and doing so without strong evidence. The best argument you could make are small steps over the course of many years which somewhat restricted firearm rights but the problem with that is that you can't determine the intent of somebody now based on what has been done for decades before. I understand the fear of incremental steps towards a complete revocation of our rights, it is a reasonable fear and something to want to resist. However there simply does not appear to be enough evidence to support a claim about the intent of the majority of the left half of this country.
Do you watch nuance bro? One of his recent episodes he interviewed anti-gun protesters outside of the NRA convention. There were a few people present who voiced support for some forms of gun control but who also explicitly stated they believed in some forms of private firearm ownership. I have found quite a number of people like this, not for complete bans just for certain regulations. Are they all just lying? Sure I suppose that's possible data to support that belief is lacking.
I think you are diving too deep into my comments about gang violence. That comment was about why gang violence doesn't get the national attention that active shooters get. The image doesn't evoke as much emotion, and it is also more foreign to the rest of the country since most people don't live on those terrible streets. But everyone has or knows innocent kids who go to school so these mass shootings understandably get much more attention. It's not meant as an indictment of people in gangs or judging their life choices.
I was talking about Federal laws because those are the ones that affect everyone. Maybe in Hawaii we can talk about how much of our rights got taken away but people in Texas wouldn't be able to make that same complaint so I was referencing laws that affect everyone overall, federal laws. I don't know the specifics of each bill without digging deep into them. I only discovered that it was inaccurate to claim that our rights only get smaller and smaller when sometimes they did get beefed up, such as the law that bans a federal database.
As for pistols I recall people wanting to restrict those for quite some time. That's nothing new and it's not contingent on first banning semi-automatic rifles. I think we're getting too far off topic here though. The point I was making was merely that there are gun control groups who want to pass legislation aimed at reducing gang violence too, not merely active shooter violence.
First the Jews were forced to register themselves and wear armbands. Then guns taken away. Then slave labor began. Then they were forced to move from their homes into certain parts of town. Then slowly, they were put into trains to be hauled away. Guess at no point was there enough "evidence" to think that things would get worst. Watch the first 30 mins of Schindlers list, Spielberg provides dates as this happened.
I guess I'm just able to see where this is going and thinking 5 steps ahead and for my children and childrens children's 2a right. At this point, I cannot teach you this concept. So it's relatively OK. Everyone has different ways of applying critical thinking/logic.
Since HI never stated they want to take ALL guns away, I guess every law that they tried to pass and have passed is OK then because ALL guns were not taken away. Which would mean you should support all the bills/laws. Like if they banned all rifles, changed mag limits to 1 round, needed to keep firearms at a range in a locker, etc... None of this is violating the 2a because you can still have you guns.
I'm not diving too deep, I was just using the type of thought that you do. Every discussion, one can find a way to argue any side and make it sound good, even though it doesn't make sense when really thought about.
At this point, I think it's OK to say we disagree on the issues brought up and neither will be able to change the others mind. But we both knew this from the start, I just want others to read and make their own judgments of the discussion.
-
Indeed.
Or maybe you are right, maybe they are so stubborn and can't listen to reason... But then they probably say the same thing about you. Have you checked your own eye for a log first?
Most of the stuff you post is based on lies which also happen to be talking points for gun control groups.
I suppose that's just a coincidence though
Science can be bought just as easily as politicians and the media, and the problem with going along with and promoting convenient lies is that you set yourself up to make terrible self destructive decisions.
-
Most of the stuff you post is based on lies which also happen to be talking points for gun control groups.
I suppose that's just a coincidence though
Science can be bought just as easily as politicians and the media, and the problem with going along with and promoting convenient lies is that you set yourself up to make terrible self destructive decisions.
Not only that, but the more lies you leave unchallenged, the more new lies will be based on the old -- through association and "logical reasoning."
In math class, they taught us how to prove or disprove solutions to problems applying theorems, properties as well as inductive and deductive reasoning. The fundamental component of proving a hypothesis was trusting that the theorems, properties and reasoning skills used were TRUE. Imagine how many things we think we know now would be disproven today if the theorems used to support them were discovered to be lies.
When it comes to gun control, certain people (and we know at least a couple here) hang their hats on statistics, even though it's been shown time and again that CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION. Yet, here we are reading what someone tries to say is our problem for not listening to people who carry gun stats around on their phone as proof of what they believe.
If someone tells you 2+2 = 14, are you really going to waste your time listening to what they say as they try to convince you you're wrong and they are right?
Most of the laws being pushed have been tried in many states with strict gun laws, yet nothing seems to be stopping gun-involved crimes. Yet, each law was passed as a "solution."
I'd like to see a list of crimes stopped by these strict laws. To me, if they value statistics, those would be essential to convincing the gun rights groups to support the anti-gun groups' quest to pass more restrictions. Instead, we get emotional cries from them for new laws and limitations that would not have stopped any of the most recent shootings -- period.
-
When you say that they just are working towards eventual complete bans you are making a statement about intentions and doing so without strong evidence. The best argument you could make are small steps over the course of many years which somewhat restricted firearm rights but the problem with that is that you can't determine the intent of somebody now based on what has been done for decades before. I understand the fear of incremental steps towards a complete revocation of our rights, it is a reasonable fear and something to want to resist. However there simply does not appear to be enough evidence to support a claim about the intent of the majority of the left half of this country.
Do you watch nuance bro? One of his recent episodes he interviewed anti-gun protesters outside of the NRA convention. There were a few people present who voiced support for some forms of gun control but who also explicitly stated they believed in some forms of private firearm ownership. I have found quite a number of people like this, not for complete bans just for certain regulations. Are they all just lying? Sure I suppose that's possible data to support that belief is lacking.
I think you are diving too deep into my comments about gang violence. That comment was about why gang violence doesn't get the national attention that active shooters get. The image doesn't evoke as much emotion, and it is also more foreign to the rest of the country since most people don't live on those terrible streets. But everyone has or knows innocent kids who go to school so these mass shootings understandably get much more attention. It's not meant as an indictment of people in gangs or judging their life choices.
I was talking about Federal laws because those are the ones that affect everyone. Maybe in Hawaii we can talk about how much of our rights got taken away but people in Texas wouldn't be able to make that same complaint so I was referencing laws that affect everyone overall, federal laws. I don't know the specifics of each bill without digging deep into them. I only discovered that it was inaccurate to claim that our rights only get smaller and smaller when sometimes they did get beefed up, such as the law that bans a federal database.
As for pistols I recall people wanting to restrict those for quite some time. That's nothing new and it's not contingent on first banning semi-automatic rifles. I think we're getting too far off topic here though. The point I was making was merely that there are gun control groups who want to pass legislation aimed at reducing gang violence too, not merely active shooter violence.
Register your guns or you will be fined and go to jail.
"However there simply does not appear to be enough evidence to support a claim about the intent of the majority of the left half of this country."
Is that not sufficient intent?
Does someone with a bat actually have to beat you with it before you think they have intent to hurt you?
Cops blast away at the first inkling of a threat. Why should we be any different? We are dealing with dangerous people.
People whose history is one of death and enslavement.
Who are these people? Governments, Kings, War Lords, and people that enable governments, Kings, and War Lords.
No compromise.
:grrr:
-
Register your guns or you will be fined and go to jail.
"However there simply does not appear to be enough evidence to support a claim about the intent of the majority of the left half of this country."
Is that not sufficient intent?
Does someone with a bat actually have to beat you with it before you think they have intent to hurt you?
Cops blast away at the first inkling of a threat. Why should we be any different? We are dealing with dangerous people.
People whose history is one of death and enslavement.
Who are these people? Governments, Kings, War Lords, and people that enable governments, Kings, and War Lords.
No compromise.
:grrr:
You are still making assumptions about intent. You may think registration is proof of some intent towards ultimate nationwide confiscation but that it not the only possible reason someone might want firearm registration.
-
Most of the stuff you post is based on lies which also happen to be talking points for gun control groups.
I suppose that's just a coincidence though
Science can be bought just as easily as politicians and the media, and the problem with going along with and promoting convenient lies is that you set yourself up to make terrible self destructive decisions.
I repeat certain things the gun control groups say to help understand the other side of the issue. You assume the worst of the other side, that it is all lies but in doing so you fail to understand your opponent.
It is easier to feel justified in fighting the other side if you demonize them but you will have a less accurate understanding of them and their beliefs
-
First the Jews were forced to register themselves and wear armbands. Then guns taken away. Then slave labor began. Then they were forced to move from their homes into certain parts of town. Then slowly, they were put into trains to be hauled away. Guess at no point was there enough "evidence" to think that things would get worst. Watch the first 30 mins of Schindlers list, Spielberg provides dates as this happened.
I guess I'm just able to see where this is going and thinking 5 steps ahead and for my children and childrens children's 2a right. At this point, I cannot teach you this concept. So it's relatively OK. Everyone has different ways of applying critical thinking/logic.
Since HI never stated they want to take ALL guns away, I guess every law that they tried to pass and have passed is OK then because ALL guns were not taken away. Which would mean you should support all the bills/laws. Like if they banned all rifles, changed mag limits to 1 round, needed to keep firearms at a range in a locker, etc... None of this is violating the 2a because you can still have you guns.
I'm not diving too deep, I was just using the type of thought that you do. Every discussion, one can find a way to argue any side and make it sound good, even though it doesn't make sense when really thought about.
At this point, I think it's OK to say we disagree on the issues brought up and neither will be able to change the others mind. But we both knew this from the start, I just want others to read and make their own judgments of the discussion.
Yes, yes, I am very well aware of many instances in which gun bans were later followed by extreme injustices by a government against it's people. I do not at all dispute that having guns outlawed leaves citizens little to resist oppression with.
My point is that you cannot just assume that the minds of most democrat voters want total bans on guns, not without data. You can't reason that guns were banned and the Holocaust later happened therefore you know that more than half of american democrats want total gun bans. That line of reasoning is flawed. On top of that I am not even saying you are wrong, only saying I can't find evidence to support you statement. Maybe it is true, I don't know but I'm not going to hop onto that argument point without actual evidence to support it. I don't like to just assign motives to people, especially negative motives, when I don't have evidence.
Personally, when it comes to registration, since you bring it up, here are my thoughts. The potential for abuse is clear and undeniable but I don't think I would it violates the 2nd amendment so it's not a law I am thrilled about but I also wouldn't consider my rights as being violated by having to register. Then again, if the government becomes tyrannical a rent they just going to go house to house taking guns without a warrant anyway. Would not having a list make a big difference?
-
My point is that you cannot just assume that the minds of most democrat voters want total bans on guns, not without data. You can't reason that guns were banned and the Holocaust later happened therefore you know that more than half of american democrats want total gun bans. That line of reasoning is flawed. On top of that I am not even saying you are wrong, only saying I can't find evidence to support you statement. Maybe it is true, I don't know but I'm not going to hop onto that argument point without actual evidence to support it. I don't like to just assign motives to people, especially negative motives, when I don't have evidence.
Personally, when it comes to registration, since you bring it up, here are my thoughts. The potential for abuse is clear and undeniable but I don't think I would it violates the 2nd amendment so it's not a law I am thrilled about but I also wouldn't consider my rights as being violated by having to register. Then again, if the government becomes tyrannical a rent they just going to go house to house taking guns without a warrant anyway. Would not having a list make a big difference?
History teaches us can happen when guns are taken away. The extreme is Holocaust is 1. Then there's that DC rep from TX who was born in China. Her village was exterminated when she was a little girl. First they took the guns away. Which is why she vows to never give up her guns (AR15). Sierra Leone, etc...
Here's a hypothetical. If the laws were passed that only allowed a single shot revolver ( rest of the cylinders blocked), would you be OK with this? You can still own a gun since this would not be a total ban. And 1 can only have 1 bullet in the household. If this were to happen, that means more of the 2a was chipped away at. And there is still no evidence of a total ban, which would violate the 2a. Would you not agree that the anti gun politiicans/people are not wanting a "total ban".
-
Yes, yes, I am very well aware of many instances in which gun bans were later followed by extreme injustices by a government against it's people. I do not at all dispute that having guns outlawed leaves citizens little to resist oppression with.
My point is that you cannot just assume that the minds of most democrat voters want total bans on guns, not without data. You can't reason that guns were banned and the Holocaust later happened therefore you know that more than half of american democrats want total gun bans. That line of reasoning is flawed. On top of that I am not even saying you are wrong, only saying I can't find evidence to support you statement. Maybe it is true, I don't know but I'm not going to hop onto that argument point without actual evidence to support it. I don't like to just assign motives to people, especially negative motives, when I don't have evidence.
Personally, when it comes to registration, since you bring it up, here are my thoughts. The potential for abuse is clear and undeniable but I don't think I would it violates the 2nd amendment so it's not a law I am thrilled about but I also wouldn't consider my rights as being violated by having to register. Then again, if the government becomes tyrannical a rent they just going to go house to house taking guns without a warrant anyway. Would not having a list make a big difference?
"Most Democrat voters" is not what anyone other than you is talking about.
We are talking about the officials Democrat voters elect. Those are the ones wanting to take away guns that matter. Look how many times Feinstein has been reelected, even though she wants to take guns if she can ever get enough votes.
Stop trying to steer the conversation based on something nobody but you said.
-
You are still making assumptions about intent. You may think registration is proof of some intent towards ultimate nationwide confiscation but that it not the only possible reason someone might want firearm registration.
Please tell why someone might want firearm reg?
-
:stopjack:
Please tell why someone might want firearm reg?
-
:stopjack:
You're right. EEF, disregard.
-
Please tell why someone might want firearm reg?
Because they believe it would help solve firearm crimes, prevent people from having certain illegal firearms, and to catch people who should not have firearms.
People do sometimes bring in guns to register at HPD only to have the confiscated because they are either illegal or the person is legally prohibited from owning firearms.
-
"Most Democrat voters" is not what anyone other than you is talking about.
We are talking about the officials Democrat voters elect. Those.
You're avoiding the question. If you aren talking about elected democrats instead of democrat voters the challenge remains the same. Prove the assertion that most of them want complete gun bans. I tried looking for data to support your argument and couldn't find anything solid. So the question remains, can you prove your assertion. "But Feinstein..." isn't a statistical argument.
-
History teaches us can happen when guns are taken away. The extreme is Holocaust is 1. Then there's that DC rep from TX who was born in China. Her village was exterminated when she was a little girl. First they took the guns away. Which is why she vows to never give up her guns (AR15). Sierra Leone, etc...
Here's a hypothetical. If the laws were passed that only allowed a single shot revolver ( rest of the cylinders blocked), would you be OK with this? You can still own a gun since this would not be a total ban. And 1 can only have 1 bullet in the household. If this were to happen, that means more of the 2a was chipped away at. And there is still no evidence of a total ban, which would violate the 2a. Would you not agree that the anti gun politiicans/people are not wanting a "total ban".
Now you're getting more into the nuance. (Which is a good thing)
In your hypothetical sure, someone could claim that having single shot firearms is not a total gun ban. Would I be ok with such an idea? Absolutely not but clearly my point of debate here has nothing to do with whether I am ok with it. The point is to illustrate that even on the left side with their gun control ideas there is a range of views. Some who would want all guns banned, some who would only allow single shot firearms, some who would only allow non semiautomatic firearms, some who wouldn't restrict gun types but just who can have them, etc etc etc.
We as gun rights enthusiasts are no different, we don't all think any person should be able to have any gun they want.
-
Now you're getting more into the nuance. (Which is a good thing)
In your hypothetical sure, someone could claim that having single shot firearms is not a total gun ban. Would I be ok with such an idea? Absolutely not but clearly my point of debate here has nothing to do with whether I am ok with it. The point is to illustrate that even on the left side with their gun control ideas there is a range of views. Some who would want all guns banned, some who would only allow single shot firearms, some who would only allow non semiautomatic firearms, some who wouldn't restrict gun types but just who can have them, etc etc etc.
We as gun rights enthusiasts are no different, we don't all think any person should be able to have any gun they want.
Whoa Boy!
"We as gun rights enthusiasts are no different, we don't all think any person should be able to have any gun they want."
I think you can have ANY gun you want.
-
Because they believe it would help solve firearm crimes, prevent people from having certain illegal firearms, and to catch people who should not have firearms.
People do sometimes bring in guns to register at HPD only to have the confiscated because they are either illegal or the person is legally prohibited from owning firearms.
2 consfiscated out of 50,000 (2020) registered. Damnnnnn, the violating of having to register sure is worth it.
We discussed this b4, which is why i said no need reply.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
-
Guys, the lefts views on guns are so wide ranging and different that all but maybe one elected democrat has a favorable rating by the NRA. They are so nuanced that almost every single gun control issue is supported almost unanimously by the left wing politicians. To follow the logical progression of the lefts arguments is to “assume intent”. We must wait until the cops are coming door to door, using our registration system (even though criminals don’t register their firearms, only law abiding citizens do, but we’ll ignore that and say they can be used for other things) before we can confirm their intent. Besides they are just confiscating “dangerous” AR15s that are responsible for 3% of gun deaths. The left is totally ok with the 80+% of gun deaths committed with handguns they definitely won’t come after those.
-
Whoa Boy!
"We as gun rights enthusiasts are no different, we don't all think any person should be able to have any gun they want."
I think you can have ANY gun you want.
I am not a child, a felon, nor am I confined in a prison or mental hospital.
Even then I suspect at some level even you would consider some restriction on certain weapons as being reasonable. Grenades perhaps, chemical weapons maybe?
We are all for gun rights here and we don't all draw our lines in the exact same places but we all draw them somewhere.
-
2 consfiscated out of 50,000 (2020) registered. Damnnnnn, the violating of having to register sure is worth it.
We discussed this b4, which is why i said no need reply.
Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
You are replying to a different thing than I answered.
You did not ask me whether registration was effective, you asked me why someone would want it. Those are separate questions.
You asked for other reasons why people might want registration and I listed reasons why people might want registration. Replying that registration is not effective does not negate whether they believed it would work because your initial question is one of intent not of effectiveness.
Why does my wife's friend wear crystals? Because she thinks it absorbs negative energy. It doesn't really absorb negative energy but she believes it does and that is why she wears it.
Now as far as effectiveness goes well that is debate-able of course. Depending on who you ask the amount of confiscated guns necessary to be worth it is going to be different. At what number of guns confiscated do you think the registration requirement would be worth it? If registration caught 1 out of 100 guns as being illegal or illegally possessed would that be worth it? Just curious because this aspect of registration is inherently subjective.
-
I didn't realize people who possess guns illegally are stupid enough to register them,
In fact, if you're prohibited from possessing firearms, the courts have ruled you cannot be forced to register firearms you possess illegally.
To force you to register would violate the 5th Amendment of the Constitution -- you're being forced by the state to be a witness against yourself.
Therefore, don't believe registration catches or punishes anyone for illegally possessing unregistered firearms.
-
I didn't realize people who possess guns illegally are stupid enough to register them,
You didn't realize that some gun owners aren't as well informed about what types of guns are not legal here?
-
You didn't realize that some gun owners aren't as well informed about what types of guns are not legal here?
Please show where I said "some gun owners" are registering illegal guns,
and not that prohibited individuals who are illegally in possession of guns would be stupid to register them.
#FOCUS
#RIF.
-
Please show where I said "some gun owners" are registering illegal guns,
and not that prohibited individuals who are illegally in possession of guns would be stupid to register them.
#FOCUS
#RIF.
You said you didn't realize people who possess guns illegally are stupid enough to register them.
So, for example, a military member moves to Hawaii and brings with him an assault pistol and goes to register it because he doesn't realize it is illegal in Hawaii. He may be ignorant but I wouldn't call him stupid for trying to comply with the registration law.