Author Topic: Gun Control?  (Read 21016 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #90 on: February 16, 2018, 11:31:07 AM »

Offline fairweatherfan

  • Dennis Johnson
  • ******************
  • Posts: 18534
  • Tommy Points: 2040
  • Be the posts you wish to see in the world.
It is disappointing to me that these situations are politized before the people who passed away are even buried. Psychotropic drugs seem to be a common denominator. Maybe itís time to take a closer look at these drugs.


I think much of what I read on cblog about guns is apolitical. It is not "Republicans did this" and "democrats did that"

Instead it is: "let's consider this approach" or "lets consider that approach"

Having a debate about the tradeoffs of different approaches is not political.

I would disagree, these approaches require political action to implement, so they're inherently political. Complaining about politicization is also usually a political statement, because it aligns with preferring political inaction and the status quo. 

What it's (mostly) not is what you're referring to - partisan or tribal arguments, which are toxic and get conflated with political discourse all the time. Political discussion isn't a bad thing!  It's how we decide what we want our society to look like. We've just made it a bad word because it so often veers toward dishonesty and vitriol.

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #91 on: February 16, 2018, 11:32:54 AM »

Offline triboy16f

  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20564
  • Tommy Points: 519
Gun control would have done nothing to prevent the vegas , florida school mass murders

These killers had no previous criminal records.

Well how about then prevent sale to people with known mental problems?  What if a gun owner develops mental issues after owning a gun?

Bumper stocks should have been automatically banned after the Vegas shooting. But the NRA opposed for whatever bs reason as usual.
Semi automatics are still here. And weapons are getting fancier and more advanced

Only real solution is to ban guns outright.

This solution assumes that banned guns = people don't have guns.

Would you ban all guns on domestic, civilian lands? Like no police or military weapons? They shouldn't need them if guns are banned for everyone else.

No.  Purpose of gun requirements for police and military are different.   I would still allows hunters to rent guns as well.

But for the average joe who lives in the US..no guns allowed. It is not a mature enough society to carry guns responsibly.

You want to protect your house from thieves? Buy a guard dog instead.

The NRA has poisoned the publics mind that people are safer with guns than without.  At the end of the day , they and gun makers become rich and there are at least 5-10 school type mass murders every year. No other country faces this issue

Getting sick and tired of this. It is not right.


What is the purpose of guns for police and military (domestically)?

you know the reasons why...but this reason should not trickle down to society self policing with guns. BC it has resulted in mass shootings every year.   Rise in the number of gun related murders every year

There are a number of countries that function quite well without guns

Without gun ownership maybe the number of robberies may increase.  However mass shootings would definitely decrease

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #92 on: February 16, 2018, 11:38:38 AM »

Offline gift

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1485
  • Tommy Points: 142
Gun control would have done nothing to prevent the vegas , florida school mass murders

These killers had no previous criminal records.

Well how about then prevent sale to people with known mental problems?  What if a gun owner develops mental issues after owning a gun?

Bumper stocks should have been automatically banned after the Vegas shooting. But the NRA opposed for whatever bs reason as usual.
Semi automatics are still here. And weapons are getting fancier and more advanced

Only real solution is to ban guns outright.

This solution assumes that banned guns = people don't have guns.

Would you ban all guns on domestic, civilian lands? Like no police or military weapons? They shouldn't need them if guns are banned for everyone else.

No.  Purpose of gun requirements for police and military are different.   I would still allows hunters to rent guns as well.

But for the average joe who lives in the US..no guns allowed. It is not a mature enough society to carry guns responsibly.

You want to protect your house from thieves? Buy a guard dog instead.

The NRA has poisoned the publics mind that people are safer with guns than without.  At the end of the day , they and gun makers become rich and there are at least 5-10 school type mass murders every year. No other country faces this issue

Getting sick and tired of this. It is not right.


What is the purpose of guns for police and military (domestically)?

you know the reasons why...but this reason should not trickle down to society self policing with guns. BC it has resulted in mass shootings every year.   Rise in the number of murders every year

There are a number of countries that function quite well without guns

Without gun ownership maybe the number of robberies may increase.  However mass shootings would definitely decrease

No, I don't know why you think police and military should have guns. I know why I think they have guns. Since your statements aren't making sense to me, I'm trying to get you to explain to me your line of thinking rather than me trying to anticipate your thinking and tell you what you think. That's counterproductive.

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #93 on: February 16, 2018, 11:43:58 AM »

Offline gift

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1485
  • Tommy Points: 142
Gun control would have done nothing to prevent the vegas , florida school mass murders

These killers had no previous criminal records.

Well how about then prevent sale to people with known mental problems?  What if a gun owner develops mental issues after owning a gun?

Bumper stocks should have been automatically banned after the Vegas shooting. But the NRA opposed for whatever bs reason as usual.
Semi automatics are still here. And weapons are getting fancier and more advanced

Only real solution is to ban guns outright.

This solution assumes that banned guns = people don't have guns.

Would you ban all guns on domestic, civilian lands? Like no police or military weapons? They shouldn't need them if guns are banned for everyone else.

No.  Purpose of gun requirements for police and military are different.   I would still allows hunters to rent guns as well.

But for the average joe who lives in the US..no guns allowed. It is not a mature enough society to carry guns responsibly.

You want to protect your house from thieves? Buy a guard dog instead.

The NRA has poisoned the publics mind that people are safer with guns than without.  At the end of the day , they and gun makers become rich and there are at least 5-10 school type mass murders every year. No other country faces this issue

Getting sick and tired of this. It is not right.


What is the purpose of guns for police and military (domestically)?

you know the reasons why...but this reason should not trickle down to society self policing with guns. BC it has resulted in mass shootings every year.   Rise in the number of gun related murders every year

There are a number of countries that function quite well without guns

Without gun ownership maybe the number of robberies may increase.  However mass shootings would definitely decrease

I'm not even sure that robberies would increase (or that mass shootings would definitely decrease). However, I would just like to point out that you seem to be selecting a lesser negative consequence (robberies) as increasing, while the greater negative consequence (mass shootings) would decrease.

Why would robberies possibly increase, but for instance, gun murders not also increase? What evidence is there that a gun would deter a robbery (by your admission), but would not also deter a gun violence, or even any other murder? If a gun could deter a robbery, couldn't a gun deter a murder? I'm just saying, you seem to be showing some bias in your selection. And I think the best answers are found when eliminating all the bias we can.

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #94 on: February 16, 2018, 11:54:37 AM »

Offline triboy16f

  • Johnny Most
  • ********************
  • Posts: 20564
  • Tommy Points: 519
Gun control would have done nothing to prevent the vegas , florida school mass murders

These killers had no previous criminal records.

Well how about then prevent sale to people with known mental problems?  What if a gun owner develops mental issues after owning a gun?

Bumper stocks should have been automatically banned after the Vegas shooting. But the NRA opposed for whatever bs reason as usual.
Semi automatics are still here. And weapons are getting fancier and more advanced

Only real solution is to ban guns outright.

This solution assumes that banned guns = people don't have guns.

Would you ban all guns on domestic, civilian lands? Like no police or military weapons? They shouldn't need them if guns are banned for everyone else.

No.  Purpose of gun requirements for police and military are different.   I would still allows hunters to rent guns as well.

But for the average joe who lives in the US..no guns allowed. It is not a mature enough society to carry guns responsibly.

You want to protect your house from thieves? Buy a guard dog instead.

The NRA has poisoned the publics mind that people are safer with guns than without.  At the end of the day , they and gun makers become rich and there are at least 5-10 school type mass murders every year. No other country faces this issue

Getting sick and tired of this. It is not right.


What is the purpose of guns for police and military (domestically)?

you know the reasons why...but this reason should not trickle down to society self policing with guns. BC it has resulted in mass shootings every year.   Rise in the number of gun related murders every year

There are a number of countries that function quite well without guns

Without gun ownership maybe the number of robberies may increase.  However mass shootings would definitely decrease

I'm not even sure that robberies would increase (or that mass shootings would definitely decrease). However, I would just like to point out that you seem to be selecting a lesser negative consequence (robberies) as increasing, while the greater negative consequence (mass shootings) would decrease.

Why would robberies possibly increase, but for instance, gun murders not also increase? What evidence is there that a gun would deter a robbery (by your admission), but would not also deter a gun violence, or even any other murder? If a gun could deter a robbery, couldn't a gun deter a murder? I'm just saying, you seem to be showing some bias in your selection. And I think the best answers are found when eliminating all the bias we can.

just study countries that dont allow guns..and you will find the answers you are looking for

society can function without it. And doesn't mean crime increases etc.  The positive result is unlikely mass shooting/casualties, less gun related murders.

You stated above you are not sure if mass shooting would even decrease without guns rotating freely in society...think about this for a sec.  Because the answer is, eventually it will
« Last Edit: February 16, 2018, 12:00:52 PM by triboy16f »

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #95 on: February 16, 2018, 02:58:34 PM »

Offline Surferdad

  • Satch Sanders
  • *********
  • Posts: 9240
  • Tommy Points: 587
  • "He fiddles...and diddles..."
Grouping semi-automatic killing machines with handguns and rifles makes no sense to me.

They are more like tanks in terms of their impact.  Why doesn't NRA want tanks to be as available as AR-15s?

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #96 on: February 16, 2018, 03:09:19 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 35611
  • Tommy Points: -27751
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Grouping semi-automatic killing machines with handguns and rifles makes no sense to me.

They are more like tanks in terms of their impact.  Why doesn't NRA want tanks to be as available as AR-15s?

Most rifles and handguns are semi-automatic. Anything that uses a magazine is fairly similar in its firing mechanism, and thus itís killing capacity.

For instance, a Glock 9mm can fire a 33 round magazine in approximately 3 seconds.


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #97 on: February 16, 2018, 03:31:36 PM »

Offline Cman

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12547
  • Tommy Points: 23
It is disappointing to me that these situations are politized before the people who passed away are even buried. Psychotropic drugs seem to be a common denominator. Maybe itís time to take a closer look at these drugs.


I think much of what I read on cblog about guns is apolitical. It is not "Republicans did this" and "democrats did that"

Instead it is: "let's consider this approach" or "lets consider that approach"

Having a debate about the tradeoffs of different approaches is not political.

I agree. I don't think this is a "Political " argument. I think people just want to feel safe and have their kids feel safe and they feel nothing is even being tried. The time is now to try and do something about this situation.

Agreed. I think that is the political risk for Congress right now. It's pretty clear that "thoughts and prayers" haven't done much, and more and more people are fed up with Congress not doing anything. Basically not even acknowledging that there's a problem.

So, how about we have some Congressional hearings, or commission a study?

How about we let the CDC study the link between mental health and gun ownership?
Celtics fan for life.

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #98 on: February 16, 2018, 03:47:44 PM »

Offline Cman

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12547
  • Tommy Points: 23
Shepard Smith (Fox News) video clip on the need for us to study this problem.

Paraphrasing: We are the greatest nation on earth. We put a man on the moon. But we have a problem. Only in our country are children killing each other. Why can't we solve it? Let's get the best and the brightest, give them whatever they need, give them funds, put them in a room together, to study this and solve this.

(pretty powerful stuff; worth a look)

https://youtu.be/iNnQX1rVYgY

Celtics fan for life.

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #99 on: February 16, 2018, 03:52:04 PM »

Offline JSD

  • Danny Ainge
  • **********
  • Posts: 10046
  • Tommy Points: 1140
It is disappointing to me that these situations are politized before the people who passed away are even buried. Psychotropic drugs seem to be a common denominator. Maybe itís time to take a closer look at these drugs.

http://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/Another-Mass-Shooting-Potentially-Linked-to-Psychiatric-Drugs-1002085657

This response is older than all of the students who were massacred. Think about that for a moment.

What is being proposed that would have prevented this from happening exactly? What would stop someone from plowing into a bunch of people with an 18 wheeler like we've seen at these other mass attacks? The truth is, unless you are locked away in your house, wrapped in bubble wrap, you are at risk of tragically being killed.

Well, if youíre going to drive into a crowd, you at least need a license and registration , which is more than can be said about guns.

Thatís not true. There is nothing stopping someone from stealing a truck and driving it into a crowd.

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #100 on: February 16, 2018, 03:57:13 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 35611
  • Tommy Points: -27751
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
It is disappointing to me that these situations are politized before the people who passed away are even buried. Psychotropic drugs seem to be a common denominator. Maybe itís time to take a closer look at these drugs.

http://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/Another-Mass-Shooting-Potentially-Linked-to-Psychiatric-Drugs-1002085657

This response is older than all of the students who were massacred. Think about that for a moment.

What is being proposed that would have prevented this from happening exactly? What would stop someone from plowing into a bunch of people with an 18 wheeler like we've seen at these other mass attacks? The truth is, unless you are locked away in your house, wrapped in bubble wrap, you are at risk of tragically being killed.

Well, if youíre going to drive into a crowd, you at least need a license and registration , which is more than can be said about guns.

Thatís not true. There is nothing stopping someone from stealing a truck and driving it into a crowd.

Why would they, when itís a lot easier to legally buy a gun and high capacity magazines?



Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #101 on: February 16, 2018, 04:07:21 PM »

Offline OhioGreen

  • Gordon Hayward
  • Posts: 587
  • Tommy Points: 39
Grouping semi-automatic killing machines with handguns and rifles makes no sense to me.

They are more like tanks in terms of their impact.  Why doesn't NRA want tanks to be as available as AR-15s?

Most rifles and handguns are semi-automatic. Anything that uses a magazine is fairly similar in its firing mechanism, and thus itís killing capacity.

For instance, a Glock 9mm can fire a 33 round magazine in approximately 3 seconds.
Any semi auto pistol can only fire as fast as the trigger can be pulled! Put your hand on a table and tap you index finger on it as fast as you can.......and let me know when you can tap 33 times in 3 seconds!
It can be mechanically fired that many times, actually 1200 rounds a minute,,,but not by any human being!  Let's stop distorting things, and them putting them out there so people actually think they are true!

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #102 on: February 16, 2018, 04:12:54 PM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 35611
  • Tommy Points: -27751
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Grouping semi-automatic killing machines with handguns and rifles makes no sense to me.

They are more like tanks in terms of their impact.  Why doesn't NRA want tanks to be as available as AR-15s?

Most rifles and handguns are semi-automatic. Anything that uses a magazine is fairly similar in its firing mechanism, and thus itís killing capacity.

For instance, a Glock 9mm can fire a 33 round magazine in approximately 3 seconds.
Any semi auto pistol can only fire as fast as the trigger can be pulled! Put your hand on a table and tap you index finger on it as fast as you can.......and let me know when you can tap 33 times in 3 seconds!
It can be mechanically fired that many times, actually 1200 rounds a minute,,,but not by any human being!  Let's stop distorting things, and them putting them out there so people actually think they are true!

Itís not really a distortion. Thatís how fast the gun can be fired, and there are plenty of legal trigger / firing mechanisms that can be equipped to make the gun fire faster than you can manually tap the trigger.

But, regardless, how fast can you pull the trigger? How long would it take you to fire off 33 bullets? 10 seconds? 15?


Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012;
DKC Draft 2015 Champions and beyond...

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #103 on: February 16, 2018, 04:36:37 PM »

Offline Cman

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12547
  • Tommy Points: 23
One of the stranger pieces to the recent shooting is how some alt-right people worked to trick ADL ABC and other reporters that Cruz was linked to extremist groups.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/16/florida-shooting-white-nationalists-415672
Celtics fan for life.

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #104 on: February 16, 2018, 04:37:11 PM »

Offline Eddie20

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8176
  • Tommy Points: 886
Grouping semi-automatic killing machines with handguns and rifles makes no sense to me.

They are more like tanks in terms of their impact.  Why doesn't NRA want tanks to be as available as AR-15s?

Most rifles and handguns are semi-automatic. Anything that uses a magazine is fairly similar in its firing mechanism, and thus itís killing capacity.

For instance, a Glock 9mm can fire a 33 round magazine in approximately 3 seconds.

Correct. I mean you do have single action/double action which reduces firing time, but yeah, in a nutshell it's the same.

Obviously an AR causes more damage and is a more efficient tool in mass shootings, but handguns are responsible for many more deaths due to it's concealment.