Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2018 - 05:30pm PT
|
I despair. Reading these posts from a relatively progressive demographic shows me how deeply the gun culture cancer has spread thru the fabric of american culture.
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2018 - 05:38pm PT
|
It's not a crime to want to kill people, nor to say it publicly,
It is probable cause. That warrants investigation, at least. Quit trying to let a huge breakdown in law enforcement slip by with no accountability.
No proof he ever threatened anybody. I suppose we could ask the cops to confiscate guns from everybody who has ever posted super macho pics on FB with their guns.
The woman who called, with whom he was living, said he had held a gun to his mother's head. That about does it for me.
I'll bet you dimes to doughnuts that if the cops had gone to check this young man out and he pulled a gun and they shot him you would be pissed at the cops.
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2018 - 06:21pm PT
|
Our country seems a long, long way from that.
The tide is turning.
As for the guns are needed for protection from the government argument, just how many guns did the Poles have when they kicked the Soviets out?
|
|
Norton
climber
The Wastelands
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2018 - 06:54pm PT
|
so let's say they increased background checks to include buying guns at gunshows
and they included people on the terrorist no fly list to deny being able to buy guns, not now
and they banned bump stocks
and they updated the wireless reporting infrastructure to include psychiatric reporting
etc, etc, etc
so how does all that stop anyone from picking up their local newspaper classifieds and buying anything they want from a guy three miles away?
and how does any new efforts at new laws stop the usage of all the automatics out there now?
sorry but I just can't see how any "common sense" new laws will make any difference
|
|
Happiegrrrl2
Trad climber
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2018 - 07:06pm PT
|
It is obvious to me that this is NOT about gun control but about PEOPLE control.
And, there's the rub.
Police can only do so much when they are presented with what I supposed we could call "pre-existing conditions" to the acts of mass murder. Someone has to file charges, or else it just gets noted in a file(and sometimes not even that).
While in hindsight it sounds like, yes, this one was gonna blow, at what point does that other pesky amendment, the 4th, get infringed upon? And why is it acceptable to move the drawn line in THAT one, but the 2nd is as if handed down engraved on the tablets as the 11th Commandment?
There was a post today on my FB Feed, about a petition for the "Sandy Hook Promise." I cannot find it now, but it showed a picture of a mother with her young son, named Dylan.
Dylan was one of the kids killed in Sandy Hook. The text said that he had been hit by five bullets.
It also said that when the killer went to reload his gun, the children ran. If I recall correctly, it then said that many children survived because of that lapse in shooting, but that 17 more children were killed with that reloaded weapon. She then asked (paraphrase) "How many of those children might not have died, had he not been able to shoot SO many bullets before reloading? Here plea is the outlaw of high-capacity magazines(forgive me if I don't have correct term - if you must go there, it's because you're being an as#@&%e, because you know damned well what I am talking about).
I tried to copy that post, but my program didn't work, but I don't know how ANYONE could look at the picture of that sweet, smiling, innocent child, and insist that yes, we NEED to have the ability to shoot at a quick and high capacity.
We understand the changes in opioid prescription restrictions, because....people are dying with the easy availability.
We accept that there are speed limits on roads....because it's shown that driving much faster than those limits can be unsafe, not so much that we care about the one breaking the limit, but because of the innocents who happen to be there when they lose control.
We pretty much all agree that it's wrong to market tobacco to children. Why? Because they are at risk of DYING from log-term exposure to the chemicals, and they are too young to fully comprehend the ramifications of smoking and the ensuing addiction.
But eliminating the easy access to quick-shooting guns and/or the cartridges that allow these sustained bursts? WHY is that SO difficult to accept?
so how does all that stop anyone from picking up their local newspaper classifieds and buying anything they want from a guy three miles away?
and how does any new efforts at new laws stop the usage of all the automatics out there now?
sorry but I just can't see how any "common sense" new laws will make any difference
Craiglist used to be well known as a place where people could post prostitution ads.....It's now illegal, and guess what - the number of such posts is greatly reduce. Algorithms snag certain words, and it gets looked at. People will flag ones that get through, and they get looked at.
Since almost ALL ads are now online, a law that makes it illegal to sell weapons(or a category of them) without requirements fulfilled(whatever that would be), and the post would be flagged. Cops undercover go out and talk to these sellers and if all is on the up and up, the cop says they'll think about it, but the sale never occurs. Laws broken - busted.
"Newspapers"(how quaint - forget ever having attended a gun show, have you looked at the print classifieds in the last few years?) can have a policy that they don't accept ads for the selling of weapons that are on a "no-sell" list. So a person decides they will ist "legal" guns, and when the potential buyer comes around, maybe they will feel them out to see if there's interest in the unlawful ones... Not if he knows it's a game of roulette and he might land on the undercover cop buyer.
Ad for what's out there now - we DON'T need to make it impossible for any "automatics" to slip through the hole in the fence. The AIM is REDUCTION. This "all or nothing" argument is just ridiculous, and a way to deflect debate.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2018 - 07:09pm PT
|
the hysteria about taking guns away is just that, hysteria.
A number of things can be done, for instance, increasing the cost of guns to compensate for the additional drag on the economy caused by people having them, including the costs police departments etc have to account for in order to confront an armed public, and to pay for the additional security some are calling for at schools.
Taxes on guns, and on ammunition.
Requiring gun owners to have a license to operate a gun, including a test to qualify, and insurance to operate a gun and cover the costs of gun "accidents." Licenses would have to be renewed after a period of time, failure to show proof of insurance would result in the revocation of the operation of the gun (which may be impounded until which time proof of insurance was provided).
The background check would also be universal, and comprehensive.
None of these things prevent people from having guns, they would just have to do what they do to own and operate a car.
More extreme, perhaps, is to allow people to have "assault" weapons but require them to be in a state militia. If for some reason they cannot fulfill their service in the militia, they would have to surrender their weapons. The militias would regulate gun use.
|
|
Norton
climber
The Wastelands
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2018 - 07:30pm PT
|
happiegrrrl asks
eliminating the easy access to quick-shooting guns and/or the cartridges that allow these sustained bursts? WHY is that SO difficult to accept?
come on happie, you can't ask common sense questions like that around here
The answer is to a large extent the "slippery slope" mental disorder
the Fear Factor, you know, if you smoke a reefer as a teenager you WILL become a heroin addict
if we ban your easy access to quick-shooting guns and/or the cartridges that allow these sustained bursts?
then it follows that PRETTY SOON the Feds WILL come to MY house and TAKE MY GUNS FROM ME
|
|
Norton
climber
The Wastelands
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2018 - 07:58pm PT
|
another game, set and match by Ed
first earlier to the human Wall of Text, Madbolter
and now to Jody, (a known and proven liar)
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2018 - 08:19pm PT
|
I think I've sorted it out, Jody,
the consequences of owning a gun, in many instances, results in violence, and that violence has a cost.
I suggest that that cost be a part of owning a gun. Simply take the annual cost of gun violence and divide it by the number of guns. That's the cost of gun ownership.
This not only pays for the cost of the violence (which the country currently pays for indirectly) but incentivizes the self-regulation of gun ownership among the gun owners, that is, you'd be more interested in reducing gun violence because it would be economically advantageous for you to do so, if you owned a gun.
Further, increasing the costs of guns and gun ownership will dramatically change the demographics of ownership.
|
|
Happiegrrrl2
Trad climber
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2018 - 08:24pm PT
|
...his statement was the "drain on the economy by people HAVING guns".
NO IT WAS NOT! This is what I was talking about in my last post. People glomming onto a word and then using it to DEFLECT from proper debate. Jody, it WAS CLEAR that he was referring to gun violence.
Before you write "Not to me, it wasn't," how do you read what Ed posted below, and NOT get that it was about the violence?
....including the costs police departments etc have to account for in order to confront an armed public, and to pay for the additional security some are calling for at schools.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2018 - 08:29pm PT
|
Should climbers pay a premium on climbing gear to pay for people who do stupid things and get themselves injured or killed climbing?
we do pay a premium for exactly that.
And we as a society already pay the cost for criminal behavior.
I don't see it as "dangerous" that those wanting to have a gun pay (in part) for the cost for the criminal use of guns. They are precisely the ones saying we should not restrict their (or anyone's) "right" to have a gun.
If you don't have/own a gun it is difficult to commit gun violence.
I get auto insurance at a cost high enough to cover those drivers that have none, and for criminal activity regarding automobiles. It is the cost of car ownership.
You would still be able to have a gun... you just pay the price for it.
Would you agree with huge taxes on all alcohol to pay for the people that require health care from alcohol use and to pay for drunk driver's misdeeds?
yes, the alternative is that we pay higher health insurance costs, and higher health care costs to cover the "misdeeds" anyway. Increasing the costs on alcohol to cover the health care costs of alcohol abuse would be a fair way to recover these costs. You could have a drink, you'd just have to pay more... you could choose to drink less, or not at all and not pay any tax, your choice.
the paper that I cited above:
http://home.uchicago.edu/ludwigj/papers/JPubE_guns_2006FINAL.pdf
puts that cost as high as $1800/yr/gun
which would seem fair... and not restrict your "right to bear arms" (even if you are not a part of a well regulated militia).
|
|
Happiegrrrl2
Trad climber
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2018 - 08:44pm PT
|
I'm not being disingenuous....
Meanwhile, Jody, you OFTEN troll as part and parcel with your activity here on ST, when it suits you. I'm not suggesting you are trolling here, but maybe the fact that YOU think my comments are disingenuous(how you reason THAT is beyond me, though) maybe you will think once and a half next time you insert your troll text in a thread that isn't so important to you personally.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2018 - 09:56pm PT
|
Didn't the Oath Keepers station themselves at the Mexican border. I'm sure I saw them there.
Is that how we ended the illegal immigration program?
|
|
Fritz
Social climber
Choss Creek, ID
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2018 - 10:14pm PT
|
Jody? Per your post, bitching about proposed taxes on firearm ownership:
Would you agree with huge taxes on all alcohol to pay for the people that require health care from alcohol use and to pay for drunk driver's misdeeds?
I suspect, when you think about it, (if you still think,) the high U.S. state & federal alcohol taxes are meant to help pay for alcohol abuse.
http://www.businessinsider.com/us-taxes-on-beer-wine-and-spirits-maps-2014-2
Beer taxes vary widely across America, ranging from $0.02 per gallon in Wyoming to $1.17 per gallon in Tennessee. (Read more about state beer taxes here.)
Courtesy of the Tax Foundation
Wine taxes by state are much higher than beer taxes, because as alcohol content increases, taxation also tends to increase (though there are exceptions). Wine taxes are highest in Kentucky at $3.56 per gallon followed by Alaska ($2.50), Florida ($2.25), and Iowa ($1.75).
Courtesy of the Tax Foundation
When comparing per gallon taxes on alcohol, spirits are taxed at far higher rates than wine and beer. Spirits are taxed the highest in Washington at $35.22 per gallon, followed by Oregon ($22.73), Virginia ($19.19), Alabama ($18.23), and Alaska ($12.80).
|
|
Jon Beck
Trad climber
Oceanside
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2018 - 10:21pm PT
|
The Oaf Keepers were actively involved at the occupation at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge. Lavoy Finicum (aka Tarp man) is their patron saint now.
|
|
Fritz
Social climber
Choss Creek, ID
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2018 - 10:30pm PT
|
Jon Beck! Per your mention of Saint Finicum:
The Oaf Keepers were actively involved at the occupation at the Malheur Wildlife Refuge. Lavoy Finicum (aka Tarp man) is their patron saint now.
He wrote so eloquently too, in his published e-novel.
Certainly, he provided a role model for some gun-lovers here.
|
|
Jon Beck
Trad climber
Oceanside
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2018 - 10:37pm PT
|
okay Fritz, you started it
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!