Author Topic: Gun Control?  (Read 21641 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #615 on: May 22, 2018, 05:40:40 PM »

Offline Vermont Green

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4128
  • Tommy Points: 340
I don't think anyone wants to restrict ownership of hunting rifles.

Well, you'd be wrong.


Can you expand on this?  Can you quote any candidates running on a "ban all hunting rifles" platform?  Can you reference any specific legislation that was intended to ban hunting or hunting rifles?

I don't think you can as I have never heard of any such thing from even the most radically liberal candidates.  It is just tired scare tactic that the big liberal boogie man wants to take away all of your guns, perpetuated by dishonest politicians that are happy to continue this false narrative in order to get votes.

The republican party did not used to be this way.  Now everything is "they want to take your guns away" "they want to take your money and give it to lazy welfare queens" "liberals want open borders and let in 200 million immigrants"...  Things have really changed.  As long as there are people eating this nonsense up, it will continue.

Ah yes, ignore the part where I pointed out someone that explicitly stated they did want to repeal the 2nd amendment and then move the goal posts to politicians. You never said politicians in your first post, you simply said anyone.

And that aside, I have no doubts there are politicians who would like to repeal the 2nd Amendment, whether they've campaigned on it or not. Pretending there isn't a percentage of the population that does in fact want to take away all guns is choosing to ignore the obvious. It may be a small percentage of the population, but it exists.

OK, we are zeroing in on a more specific area of debate.  I agree with you that there exists a small percentage of Americans who would be OK with banning hunting rifles, but that is not what anyone is trying to do (I should have been more clear with my point but this is a blog that I am sneaking on to without time for thorough editing of my takes).  There is no liberal movement to repeal the second amendment or to ban gun ownership.  I use "or" because these are two different things.  You could repeal the second amendment and still allow for gun ownership.  The second amendment is about "maintaining a well regulated militia", I personally don't believe you need the second amendment to have private ownership of fire arms.

But back to the idea of "liberals want to take guns away".  Will you concede that the narrative of the mainstream republican/conservative (whatever you want to call it) is to take the idea that "a small percentage of Americans" don't like guns which is probably mostly true but falsely selling this as liberals want to take your guns away.  That is always the narrative that is fallen back on.  I have hockey buddies that were convinced that Obama had a secret plan to take everyone's guns away based on what they heard on talk radio,  This false narrative is perpetuated and the result is people vote for idiots like Roy Moore just because they believe if they don't, their guns will be confiscated by liberals.

Are you OK with using this as a political weapon to achieve a desired political outcome?  I am not and that is a big part of why I left the republican party some time ago.

I think it might be helpful to acknowledge a commonality among some who oppose gun control legislation and others who advocate for "reasonable" gun control measures. In my observance, you'll find members of both groups in this very thread (judging by statements made within).

The commonality is both an area of agreement and at the crux of the immovability of the respective stances. That commonality, in my opinion, is that both sides agree that "reasonable/limited" gun control measures are ultimately ineffective toward the stated goals. The disagreement is that one side is still willing to propose the policies either for sake of avoiding inaction, or with the intent to progressively restrict gun ownership in stages. The other side is unwilling to support ineffective restrictions, especially if those restrictions are precursors to further policies that have ramifications that affect them personally.

A good portion of people on both sides of gun restriction proposals share this common view and I think it's good for people who do to share this acknowledgment rather than deny it, since common ground is a good starting point for discussions.

This is a very well thought out position and well stated.  There is no doubt some truth to your point that if people feel these measures really won't do any good and are purely symbolic, then why bother, why set a president of restriction.  I guess I disagree that these measures wouldn't do any good.  No legislation or restriction is going to totally solve the issue, psychos and criminals will always find a way but I believe the common sense measures that could be taken and are supported by a majority of even gun owners would help some.

It would also potentially turn the heat down on the whole issue and remove this as a central issue to decide elections.  It is hurting our country that politicians are being elected based on how much bluster they have relative to the second amendment vs. their position on more important issues like education, immigration, debt, foreign affairs.....

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #616 on: May 22, 2018, 06:11:36 PM »

Offline Beat LA

  • NCE
  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8338
  • Tommy Points: 896
  • Mr. Emoji
My 4 year old's UPK class was put on lockdown today because of what police believed to be a credible threat. It turned out to be nothing, but I'm glad the school and local law enforcement are so vigilant. I'm also very sad about it. School shootings are going to become the new nuclear threat. The school kids being aware of a looming prospect of a violent and grizzly death at any time. They already have school shooter active drills. Just like Duck and Cover videos. And those didn't scar a generation or anything.

Yeah, I agree, but it's better to be safe than sorry :-\. In my experience, the first time that we ever had any kind of shooting drill was in sixth grade, where, get this, the thinking was that somehow locking the classroom door, putting a piece of black paper over the window on said door to prevent the guy from being able to look inside and survey the landscape, I guess, dropping the blinds for the same reason, turning out the lights, and getting everyone to specifically designated areas of the classroom, where, again, it would be ostensibly more difficult to immediately see his potential "targets" even though they were already in the dark, would somehow prevent a dude with a gun from simply shooting the lock on the door, never mind the windows, and entering the classroom where he would then proceed to slaughter all of us in cold blood ::).

Honestly, in thinking about it, now, the whole "thought process" behind this school of thought (pun intended, hehe ;D) kind of reminds me of this -



Ugh.

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #617 on: May 22, 2018, 06:21:47 PM »

Offline Neurotic Guy

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12876
  • Tommy Points: 1469
One thing I'd want banned for sure:  Any comment after a gun proposal that involves the words "but that wouldn't have prevented this shooting..."

It should be blatantly obvious to everyone that there is no single measure or strategy, or set of such, that is going to prevent gun violence or mass shootings.   Solutions need to be comprehensive and geared to impact the likelihood of reductions in frequency and impact of mass shootings.

I believe people should be able to purchase and use guns responsibly, but -- to be honest -- if our 2nd amendment is the primary impediment to the passage/implementation of sensible gun regulation, then the amendment needs to be amended, adapted/updated, or repealed. 

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #618 on: May 22, 2018, 08:32:54 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 35928
  • Tommy Points: -27666
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
It should be blatantly obvious to everyone that there is no single measure or strategy, or set of such, that is going to prevent gun violence or mass shootings.  Solutions need to be comprehensive and geared to impact the likelihood of reductions in frequency and impact of mass shootings.

I disagree somewhat. Mass shootings are terrible, of course, but statistically were talking about a small percentage of gun deaths.  Id much prefer that the focus was on preventing the thousands of handgun related deaths every year.


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

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #619 on: May 22, 2018, 08:50:50 PM »

Offline Neurotic Guy

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12876
  • Tommy Points: 1469
It should be blatantly obvious to everyone that there is no single measure or strategy, or set of such, that is going to prevent gun violence or mass shootings.  Solutions need to be comprehensive and geared to impact the likelihood of reductions in frequency and impact of mass shootings.

I disagree somewhat. Mass shootings are terrible, of course, but statistically were talking about a small percentage of gun deaths.  Id much prefer that the focus was on preventing the thousands of handgun related deaths every year.

Heres something to consider as you think about prioritizing:   There were 10 deaths  at Santa Fe HS and I think 17 at Parkland. I think wed be mistaken to think that the victims if these  2 shootings numbers 27.  In addition to those physically injured at these shootings there are potentially thousands whose lives were forever changed by acts that took less than ten minutes.  1400 students at Santa Fe.  Well over 3000 parents and grandparents. Thousands of siblings. All potentially traumatized by the events.  And while undoubtedly many of the students will learn to manage the scars emanating from that day, an untold number will carry the psychological burden of post traumatic stress for the rest of their lives.

I dont question the importance of addressing handgun deaths, but playing a numbers game when it comes to shootings is perhaps more complex than meets the eye.  There may be fewer than 100 deaths and physical wounds associated with school shootings so far in 2018, but Id hesitate to underestimate the true number of victims and the far-reaching impact of those life-changing moments on the brains of children and on the course of their lives.

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #620 on: May 22, 2018, 09:03:17 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 35928
  • Tommy Points: -27666
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
It should be blatantly obvious to everyone that there is no single measure or strategy, or set of such, that is going to prevent gun violence or mass shootings.  Solutions need to be comprehensive and geared to impact the likelihood of reductions in frequency and impact of mass shootings.

I disagree somewhat. Mass shootings are terrible, of course, but statistically were talking about a small percentage of gun deaths.  Id much prefer that the focus was on preventing the thousands of handgun related deaths every year.

Heres something to consider as you think about prioritizing:   There were 10 deaths  at Santa Fe HS and I think 17 at Parkland. I think wed be mistaken to think that the victims if these  2 shootings numbers 27.  In addition to those physically injured at these shootings there are potentially thousands whose lives were forever changed by acts that took less than ten minutes.  1400 students at Santa Fe.  Well over 3000 parents and grandparents. Thousands of siblings. All potentially traumatized by the events.  And while undoubtedly many of the students will learn to manage the scars emanating from that day, an untold number will carry the psychological burden of post traumatic stress for the rest of their lives.

I dont question the importance of addressing handgun deaths, but playing a numbers game when it comes to shootings is perhaps more complex than meets the eye.  There may be fewer than 100 deaths and physical wounds associated with school shootings so far in 2018, but Id hesitate to underestimate the true number of victims and the far-reaching impact of those life-changing moments on the brains of children and on the course of their lives.

True, but two things:

1. Death is worse than trauma. 8,000 deaths (or whatever the figure) should take precedence over 100 deaths and 10,000 traumatized;

2. Its not like people in high-crime areas arent highly-traumatized, either directly or indirectly.



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

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #621 on: May 23, 2018, 06:31:12 PM »

Offline Neurotic Guy

  • Frank Ramsey
  • ************
  • Posts: 12876
  • Tommy Points: 1469
It should be blatantly obvious to everyone that there is no single measure or strategy, or set of such, that is going to prevent gun violence or mass shootings.  Solutions need to be comprehensive and geared to impact the likelihood of reductions in frequency and impact of mass shootings.

I disagree somewhat. Mass shootings are terrible, of course, but statistically were talking about a small percentage of gun deaths.  Id much prefer that the focus was on preventing the thousands of handgun related deaths every year.

Heres something to consider as you think about prioritizing:   There were 10 deaths  at Santa Fe HS and I think 17 at Parkland. I think wed be mistaken to think that the victims if these  2 shootings numbers 27.  In addition to those physically injured at these shootings there are potentially thousands whose lives were forever changed by acts that took less than ten minutes.  1400 students at Santa Fe.  Well over 3000 parents and grandparents. Thousands of siblings. All potentially traumatized by the events.  And while undoubtedly many of the students will learn to manage the scars emanating from that day, an untold number will carry the psychological burden of post traumatic stress for the rest of their lives.

I dont question the importance of addressing handgun deaths, but playing a numbers game when it comes to shootings is perhaps more complex than meets the eye.  There may be fewer than 100 deaths and physical wounds associated with school shootings so far in 2018, but Id hesitate to underestimate the true number of victims and the far-reaching impact of those life-changing moments on the brains of children and on the course of their lives.

True, but two things:

1. Death is worse than trauma. 8,000 deaths (or whatever the figure) should take precedence over 100 deaths and 10,000 traumatized;

2. Its not like people in high-crime areas arent highly-traumatized, either directly or indirectly.


Agreed.  Just wanted to point out that the impact in the school shootings is far greater than the deaths alone.  In addition (and hoping this doesn't sound overly dramatic), there is an "institutional trauma" that is spreading to schools -- including schools that have not been impacted directly by a shooting.   Many  kids and staff members, and especially those most vulnerable due to their own personal histories, are becoming increasingly hyper-alert (not in a good way, but in a dysregulated way), and stressed, related to the frequency of the shootings.   It's beginning to feel much more that -- "it really could happen here".   

I am a frequent visitor in schools and I can tell you that I am on alert in a different way and people are alert to me (as a stranger in the building) in a different way.   While one might think -- good, people are being a little more vigilent and cautious, the downside is feeling pervasively less safe in a place that is supposed to be a safe haven for children. 

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #622 on: May 25, 2018, 06:45:08 AM »

Offline Celtics4ever

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16241
  • Tommy Points: 1060
I know this rarely happens but it is great when it does:


Civilian shoots, kills suspect who opened fire at Oklahoma City restaurant

Quote
The "bystander with a pistol confronted the shooter outside the restaurant and fatally shot him," OKCPD wrote on Twitter.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/civilian-shoots-kills-suspect-opened-fire-restaurant/story?id=55424657

I am still for some reasonable gun control.

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #623 on: May 25, 2018, 09:40:51 AM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 5517
I know this rarely happens but it is great when it does:


Civilian shoots, kills suspect who opened fire at Oklahoma City restaurant

Quote
The "bystander with a pistol confronted the shooter outside the restaurant and fatally shot him," OKCPD wrote on Twitter.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/civilian-shoots-kills-suspect-opened-fire-restaurant/story?id=55424657

I am still for some reasonable gun control.
What's so great about this? There's more info to come but this civilian acted as judge and jury, unless the suspect confronted him first and he feared for his life. Depending on how witnesses saw things this civilian could be in a lot of trouble.

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #624 on: May 25, 2018, 09:49:27 AM »

Offline angryguy77

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4300
  • Tommy Points: 371
I know this rarely happens but it is great when it does:


Civilian shoots, kills suspect who opened fire at Oklahoma City restaurant

Quote
The "bystander with a pistol confronted the shooter outside the restaurant and fatally shot him," OKCPD wrote on Twitter.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/civilian-shoots-kills-suspect-opened-fire-restaurant/story?id=55424657

I am still for some reasonable gun control.
What's so great about this? There's more info to come but this civilian acted as judge and jury, unless the suspect confronted him first and he feared for his life. Depending on how witnesses saw things this civilian could be in a lot of trouble.

It's great because it kept more people from dying. I don't know about you, but if I'm downing some baja boats and some dude decides that was going to be my last meal(which in all honesty wouldn't be that terrible of a last meal) I'd sure has heck hope there was a one man judge and jury ready with a gun to save my butt.

I don't think the hero has much to worry about

"A man walked into the Louie's restaurant and opened fire with a gun. Two people were shot," police said. "A bystander with a pistol confronted the shooter outside the restaurant and fatally shot him."

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #625 on: May 25, 2018, 09:50:30 AM »

Offline gift

  • Don Chaney
  • *
  • Posts: 1522
  • Tommy Points: 142
I know this rarely happens but it is great when it does:


Civilian shoots, kills suspect who opened fire at Oklahoma City restaurant

Quote
The "bystander with a pistol confronted the shooter outside the restaurant and fatally shot him," OKCPD wrote on Twitter.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/civilian-shoots-kills-suspect-opened-fire-restaurant/story?id=55424657

I am still for some reasonable gun control.
What's so great about this? There's more info to come but this civilian acted as judge and jury, unless the suspect confronted him first and he feared for his life. Depending on how witnesses saw things this civilian could be in a lot of trouble.

wow. it takes a certain bias to even go there without (admittedly) knowing the details.

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #626 on: May 25, 2018, 10:01:08 AM »

Offline Vermont Green

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4128
  • Tommy Points: 340
"A man walked into the Louie's restaurant and opened fire with a gun. Two people were shot," police said. "A bystander with a pistol confronted the shooter outside the restaurant and fatally shot him."

This is the part I am unclear about.  Sounds like the shooter did his shooting inside the restaurant but then was confronted outside the restaurant.  Don't want to split hairs on this but two very different scenarios could have played out here, one where the bystander was in danger and defended himself and the other where he simply decided it was the right thing to do to shoot the guy even though he may have been running away and no longer in the act of shooting people but didn't want the shooter to "get away".

Some will say either is fine, the shooter should have been shot in either case, but I think most will recognize the important nuance here.

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #627 on: May 25, 2018, 10:24:10 AM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 5517
"A man walked into the Louie's restaurant and opened fire with a gun. Two people were shot," police said. "A bystander with a pistol confronted the shooter outside the restaurant and fatally shot him."

This is the part I am unclear about.  Sounds like the shooter did his shooting inside the restaurant but then was confronted outside the restaurant.  Don't want to split hairs on this but two very different scenarios could have played out here, one where the bystander was in danger and defended himself and the other where he simply decided it was the right thing to do to shoot the guy even though he may have been running away and no longer in the act of shooting people but didn't want the shooter to "get away".

Some will say either is fine, the shooter should have been shot in either case, but I think most will recognize the important nuance here.
Exactly what I was thinking. If the shooter was just trying to get away, you call the cops. Get a license plate on the car. Try to memorize the guys face and what he had on. If the shooter was about to confront the civilian, then shoot.

Still lots to come out, but this could possibly not be as cut and dry as some may think.

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #628 on: May 25, 2018, 10:28:42 AM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Global Moderator
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 5517
I know this rarely happens but it is great when it does:


Civilian shoots, kills suspect who opened fire at Oklahoma City restaurant

Quote
The "bystander with a pistol confronted the shooter outside the restaurant and fatally shot him," OKCPD wrote on Twitter.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/civilian-shoots-kills-suspect-opened-fire-restaurant/story?id=55424657

I am still for some reasonable gun control.
What's so great about this? There's more info to come but this civilian acted as judge and jury, unless the suspect confronted him first and he feared for his life. Depending on how witnesses saw things this civilian could be in a lot of trouble.

wow. it takes a certain bias to even go there without (admittedly) knowing the details.
I don't like guns. I will admit that. But read the article. It leaves open the scenario Vermont Green and I disgussed above. Also, I could say that it takes a certain bias to believe this is as simple as good guy shoots bad guy, hooray.

Re: Gun Control?
« Reply #629 on: May 25, 2018, 10:29:06 AM »

Offline angryguy77

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4300
  • Tommy Points: 371
"A man walked into the Louie's restaurant and opened fire with a gun. Two people were shot," police said. "A bystander with a pistol confronted the shooter outside the restaurant and fatally shot him."

This is the part I am unclear about.  Sounds like the shooter did his shooting inside the restaurant but then was confronted outside the restaurant.  Don't want to split hairs on this but two very different scenarios could have played out here, one where the bystander was in danger and defended himself and the other where he simply decided it was the right thing to do to shoot the guy even though he may have been running away and no longer in the act of shooting people but didn't want the shooter to "get away".

Some will say either is fine, the shooter should have been shot in either case, but I think most will recognize the important nuance here.

It's a reasonable question. If I had to guess(and that's all we can do) is that it all happened very quickly. One story said the gunman was confronted outside. That leads me to believe it wasn't a case of the guy running away and then being shot.

I'm going to assume with the amount of witnesses there were and the fact the bystander wasn't taken into custody, that he acted within the law.