Charleston, South Carolina

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 401 - 420 of total 490 in this topic

<< First | < Previous | Show All | Next > | Last >>

nature

climber

Boulder, CO

Jun 23, 2015 - 07:09pm PT

as the military initiates Jade Helm 15 they should fly that flag. makes perfect sense if you think about it. armed insurrection and treason and that flag.

dave729

Trad climber

Western America

Jun 23, 2015 - 07:13pm PT

Is it a good idea to remove the symbols reminding people
how screwed up the south was and what it took to get their
heads right?

Well sure. I'm on the right side of this controversy.
Or am I?

Stewart

Trad climber

Courtenay, B.C.

Topic Author's Reply - Jun 23, 2015 - 07:33pm PT

So what have all of these steely-eyed "patriots" taught us so far?

-The War on Drugs hasn't been a $1 TRILLION+ waste of money that has destroyed the lives of countless millions of non- violent U.S. citizens; on the contrary, it has achieved spectacularly positive results.

-The War on Drugs has had no impact whatsoever on the U.S. crime rate.

-Poverty is not a factor contributing to crime rates, since everybody in the U.S. is doing just fine.

-Racism doesn't exist in the U.S., and blacks (and other visible minorities) are not disproportionately represented in the prison population because (see above) their standard of living is identical to that of the white population - none of whom are poor either.

-The solution to firearm violence is MORE firearms.

-Armed vigilantes can always be relied upon to instantly assess the difference between a situation that can be de-escalated and one that requires an immediate use of lethal force.

Vigilantes will never miss their intended target, so in a situation involving mass panic, the vigilante can be relied upon to hit criminals and no one else.

-In the event that there is a legal inquiry concerning their use of lethal force, they can be relied upon, without fail, to provide a completely honest account of their actions (since "patriots" have a profoundly developed sense of justice), even if their behaviour is considered to be a criminal offence.

There is no reason for police to be subject to Government scrutiny. Also, police forces should not exist in the first place since Government is evil and wishes only to enslave freedom-loving patriots.

-It is important to debate the various shapes of the Confederate flag, since racists are deeply concerned about being mistaken for those who just wish to honour their ancestors - the ancestors who treated their black brethern with the deepest respect back in the old days.

Oh - and my favourite - those 9 victims in the Charleston mass murder died because God wanted them to sit by His side in heaven.

Norton

Social climber

Jun 23, 2015 - 07:37pm PT

yes Stewart, well done, I think your summary was perfect!

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Jun 23, 2015 - 08:05pm PT

-Armed vigilantes can always be relied upon to instantly assess the difference between a situation that can be de-escalated and one that requires an immediate use of lethal force.

Thank God that we don't have a serious vigilante problem in the US, particularly since SO many cops seem to have a problem with threat-assessment and appropriate use of force.

Vigilantes will never miss their intended target, so in a situation involving mass panic, the vigilante can be relied upon to hit criminals and no one else.

Again, thank God we don't have a vigilante problem, since SO many cops seem to have a problem with hitting what they are supposedly aiming at, even after emptying multiple magazines.

jstan

climber

Jun 23, 2015 - 08:56pm PT

Back a few I posted that perhaps we might change the perspective from which we view all of our problems. Everyone is concerned with how their personal welfare might be improved. Individual X is for or against guns because someone might shoot individual X or make them change their behavior. Never mind all the blacks, whites, and children who are dying. This approach accepts the problem as being national in nature. That changes the context. I find knives on the ground and realize, being a black has to be scary. You have had some brush with the law so you can't carry a weapon. What do you do to protect yourself? Carry a knife? If you do you can't run when an officer or any two bit yo-yo tells you to stand still. Now you will get shot. Because you are black.

Everyone has the problem. We are more able to find answers when we stop thinking only of ourselves.

I have a rule of avoiding suggesting changes we might consider. Because that causes people to bury the need for finding an answer and replace it with the need to point how dim witted I am. I will violate that rule here. Criticizing each other is such an easy task, it escapes me why this is so popular.

The present widespread discussion over long imprisonment for offenses like possessing a drug and how it causes our incarcerated population to explode, suggests people may be open to changing their views as regards the justice system. That system affects each of us. In different ways but it still affects all. Things to think about:

1. How can you convict someone solely on testimony from a jailhouse informant. His testimony has conflict of interest written all over it.
2. Jail terms should be determined at least partly by whether jail is effective. If jail has a 100% recidivism rate, what do we think we are accomplishing?
3. We might also think about making correction proportional to the damage done to society. A CEO who robs a million people of a trillion dollars of their life savings should not walk and have only to find a new job.
4. And what's with the refusal to release people when good DNA evidence says they are innocent?

That's enough to get me in serious trouble, so I'll stop. The better stuff out there should be discussed in preference to what I have suggested.

Gary

Social climber

From A Buick 6

Jun 23, 2015 - 09:08pm PT

You shouldn't get in trouble for writing posts like that.

jonnyrig

climber

Jun 24, 2015 - 08:35am PT

jstan, I appreciate your perspective. Seems lost on this lot.

Most often what I see in arguments and discussions are people bringing their confirmational bias to the table, and no ability to objectively evaluate the data.
I used to be 100% against gun control of any kind; but the data supports a different perspective. Y'all can't seem to get past that, though, and address the bigger issues. Something about trees in a forest... yada yada yada...
It's ok though, most of you will not get murdered by gun. Not to say you won't be victims of violent crime; but that's a different set of data, now isn't it? And hey, it's not like you can't be killed or maimed in some other way. After all, it's really just the guns that seem to concern ya. Carry on.

jstan

climber

Jun 24, 2015 - 09:10am PT

If you look at the impact on us made by the killing of nine people, you have to come away with the conclusion there is an opportunity for us now to look at the issues in a new way. We need to do that if we are to make progress honoring the sacrifices made by those nine soules. How tragic it will be if we do nothing.

We can start simply by changing the way we use language.

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Jun 24, 2015 - 10:05am PT

More regulation...

Check, although the devil's in the details!

Licenses/certs...

Check, although without a national gun registry.

Some sort of basic course to show competency...

Check, and already the case in many states.

Registration...

Why?

Track/record all AMMO sales...

Why? And how can this be done without a national registry?

ZERO assault type weapons allowed...

What does that even mean?

Chaz

Trad climber

greater Boss Angeles area

Jun 24, 2015 - 10:12am PT

Locker,

How is one expected to gain competency to pass your test without shooting a bunch of ammo?

Then you need to shoot a bunch more to keep your skills sharp.

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Jun 24, 2015 - 10:20am PT

Please tell me that you don't REALLY need an explanation...

Yeah, that's a punt.

Of course I do, because just putting a hand-grip on a semi-auto hunting rifle does not suddenly make it an "assault weapon."

So, since you demand "ZERO tolerance" on "assault weapons," you should be able to provide a RIGOROUS definition of what they are.

jonnyrig

climber

Jun 24, 2015 - 10:21am PT

Still on guns, eh?
318 million people in the US. Depending where you look, about 1/3 (maybe more now) own firearms.
300+ million guns in the US, of every type. More than enough for every person to have one.
Bet your ass there's easily more than 100 rounds of ammo per gun, on average.

Are you going to require everyone who owns a gun to retroactively show proficiency?
Are you going to require all "assault weapons" to be surrendered?
How do you define "assault weapon"?
What's the point of tracking ammo sales... competition shooters may run through several thousand rounds per year, just saying... so do you intend to limit the amount of ammo someone can purchase and/or store?
Why register? Just so law enforcement knows who has a gun and who doesn't? Or to later collect firearms as they are determined to be "assault weapons"? Or to collect firearms from persons who subsequently become "prohibited" for various reasons?
What do you expect the compliance rate to be?
How much will it cost, and who's going to pay it?

I'm asking because I don't much believe the type of weapon or the amount of ammunition makes a very big difference. I've posted before, and here it is again for your intelligent consideration, fast shooting on-target with a REVOLVER.
[Click to View YouTube Video]

That's not an "assault weapon", and I'll grant you the guy is at the top of the shooting game; but it wouldn't take a whole lot of practice to be proficient with ANY of the firearms today considered both traditional hunting guns, and NON-assault style weapons, classes that in most circles are under no attempted regulation.

That's why I think addressing issues that lead people to violence would be far more effective at reducing it than simply limiting firearm access, as well as having the benefit of treating other important aspect of social ills.

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Jun 24, 2015 - 10:23am PT

National registry sounds GOOD to me...

Then you'll FOREVER have a fight on your hands from the "gun nuts" who will never agree that the FEDS should have a database of every person who could in principle resist them.

So when it's discovered that someone has purchased enough ammo to take out a city...

Again, the basis of armed resistance is both arms AND ammo. As in the above point, "gun nuts" are NEVER going to agree to have ammo tracked.

Furthermore, you're solving nothing that matters with such legislation. Quantity of ammo (at least quantities that anybody would care to track, as you suggest) has NEVER been a factor in any of the scenarios that get anti-gunners all worked up about new legislation.

Gary

Social climber

From A Buick 6

Jun 24, 2015 - 10:26am PT

Ron, you can't be so stupid to not know the difference between a hunting rifle and a military rifle. Stop trying to be obtuse.

hen you'll FOREVER have a fight on your hands from the "gun nuts" who will never agree that the FEDS should have a database of every person who could in principle resist them.

The "gun nuts" are not going to resist the government. They'll do whatever the oligarchs tell them to do. That's the way they roll, they love authority.

jonnyrig

climber

Jun 24, 2015 - 10:28am PT

A single box of pistol generally includes 50 rounds. That's five mags @ ten rounds each.
Rifle ammo typically comes in 20 round boxes. Harder to make a generalization for reloadability there.

How many rounds does it take to conduct a mass shooting? One box, maybe?

What are you going to do, limit people to single-shot muskets and three rounds a week?

People want real, meaningful discussion. There it is, real and in your face. No side-stepping, no bullsh#t.

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Jun 24, 2015 - 10:40am PT

those so opposed to more regulation have yet to offer any suggestions other than leave things as they are...

Ahh... this looks like the argument for Obumblecare: "We don't know what's in it; we don't know what it's really going to do; we don't know what it's really going to cost; but let's PASS IT NOW and find out." And then the "response" to the endless problems is: "Well, the Rebumblecons didn't have any solution except to do nothing."

Look, doing a BAD thing rather than nothing is NEVER a good idea!

So, bring REAL (and enforceable) suggestions to the table, and people like me are very open to talking.

I'm not opposed to universal background checks, even though I don't believe they will accomplish anything meaningful. But you can't embed a BAD thing in that legislation and call it "compromise." MY compromise is to agree to an inane thing that will have real costs and accomplish little or no good.

So don't say that people like me are all about leaving things the way they are! If you think universal background checks can do some good, I disagree but won't fight that point. But don't get greedy and insist on a national gun registry along with it.

jonnyrig

climber

Jun 24, 2015 - 10:50am PT

those so opposed to more regulation have yet to offer any suggestions other than leave things as they are...

1. universal background checks, after which you can take your pick of weapon style.
2. Should a registry scheme be installed, its sole purpose would be to remove guns from subsequently prohibited persons.
3. Tracking ammo could only be effective when cross-referenced with a registration scheme. Or, you could limit sales of ammo to those who have shown proficiency.
4. Speaking of proficiency, I agree with that for getting a CCW permit; not so much for the general public. The main two purposes are to a)reduce accidents and b)reduce the chance of a CCW permittee from utterly failing in a defensive situation (plenty more discussion to be had on that though). The accident rate is statistically low, though highly sensational. A better way to deal with that is to require safe storage and better firearm safety education.
5. Address mental health.
6. Address poverty.
7. Address racism and other hate speech. This may require giving up a few rights to freedom of speech, such as the rights we've given up toward combatting terrorism; but hey... isn't it already bordering on terrorism anyway?
8. Address drug manufacturing, dealing, and addiction. Legalize pot to much more extent than it is now. Not so much the rest of them. My opinion.
9. Pour more money into education. Give people the skills necessary to get a job, increase their quality of life, and boost our economy.
10. Healthcare. Sooo much to say about that. Cheaper, better, etc.

All of those warrant much greater discussion, and making improvements to all of them have the potential to reduce the amount of violent crime we're experiencing.

Or were you not referring to me Locker?