The Gun debate sandbox

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 4041 - 4060 of total 4988 in this topic

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

johnboy

Trad climber

Can't get here from there

Jul 14, 2014 - 07:50pm PT

It's honestly sad to watch how you can't follow an obvious inference.If you think this is "changing the topic," then, seriously, I am sad for you.

Your inference doesn't equate with people that go out with the purpose of murdering as many people they can on a mass shooting.

Gary

Social climber

Desolation Basin, Calif.

Jul 14, 2014 - 07:56pm PT

The biggest problem you guys have got is that you simply cannot produce anything approaching a compelling case to the effect that there IS a "national crisis" that needs FEDERAL intervention.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States

If this doesn't indicate a society with a serious problem, what does?

johnboy

Trad climber

Can't get here from there

Jul 14, 2014 - 08:05pm PT

As it stands, the FACT is that you guys just don't like guns. Among the MANY "carnages" you could try to get motivated to stop, you fixate on

A problem you have is to generalize your facts. I like my guns

I am an owner of many guns and was raised with loaded guns in the house at all times.
I see no reason for asking for legislation limiting the size of a magazine to 7 rounds or the stopping of selling fully auto guns.

Edit,
Your fixation is to find an end run around any legislation therfore declaring any legislation attempts useless.

Gary

Social climber

Desolation Basin, Calif.

Jul 14, 2014 - 08:26pm PT

What I like about the children's tactical vest is the 100% money back guarantee. If your kid gets plugged, they'll happily refund your money.

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Jul 14, 2014 - 08:32pm PT

Your inference doesn't equate with people that go out with the purpose of murdering as many people they can on a mass shooting.

No, instead we have FAR more people killing FAR more kids in simply pathetic, negligent, idiotic fashion with what is ALSO a deadly weapon. But that's okay.

Use a gun; go to prison.

Use a car; get your wrist slapped.

The point you fail to get hold of is that the laws (on any front) don't work.

You guys just get your panties in a bunch over one particular subset of killings and associated laws.

Inconsistent.

johnboy

Trad climber

Can't get here from there

Jul 14, 2014 - 08:47pm PT

Are you proposing that we should legislate accidents?
If you stay on topic we can discuss premeditated killings though.

Edit,

Use a car; get your wrist slapped

For crying out loud, where do live?
There are many laws that will land you plenty of years in prison for the negligent use of a motor vehicle.

johnboy

Trad climber

Can't get here from there

Jul 14, 2014 - 08:50pm PT

The point you fail to get hold of is that the laws (on any front) don't work.

Yes, we shouldn't have any laws, there are always some that won't obey them, so why bother.

Gary

Social climber

Desolation Basin, Calif.

Jul 14, 2014 - 08:56pm PT

If you outlaw murder, only outlaws will murder.

StahlBro

Trad climber

San Diego, CA

Jul 14, 2014 - 08:59pm PT

If the NRA is paying them they should ask for their money back.

Braunini

Big Wall climber

cupertino

Jul 14, 2014 - 09:04pm PT

my guess is the NRA is paying certain people to post on this thread

nice, got some beer through the nose on that one

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Jul 14, 2014 - 09:15pm PT

Yes, we shouldn't have any laws, there are always some that won't obey them, so why bother.

Yes, we shouldn't have more laws when the enforcement of the present (and what should be adequate) laws has already proven to be ineffectual.

johnboy

Trad climber

Can't get here from there

Jul 14, 2014 - 09:20pm PT

Yes, we shouldn't have more laws when the enforcement of the present (and what should be adequate) laws has already proven to be ineffectual.

Good night folks.

TradEddie

Trad climber

Philadelphia, PA

Jul 14, 2014 - 10:01pm PT

The huge difference between drugs and guns is that no country on earth has yet figured out what to do about drugs, while the USA remains the only developed country on earth that hasn't figured out what to do about guns.

With booze, we're somewhere in the middle. Who can explain the logic that I'm a felon if I buy my kid a beer on the day before his 21st birthday, yet I can legally buy him a .50cal before he can walk?

My wishlist isn't based on some blinkered political dogma, it's based on seeing what has worked in other countries, and even shown to work in some of our own states - regulation.

My definition of "worked"? A per capita homicide rate below that of countries with declared armed conflicts shouldn't be unreasonable.

TE

Braunini

Big Wall climber

cupertino

Jul 14, 2014 - 10:03pm PT

I don't think internet logic is your thing TE

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Jul 14, 2014 - 10:38pm PT

My definition of "worked"? A per capita homicide rate below that of countries with declared armed conflicts shouldn't be unreasonable.

COOL!

We're already there, despite being HUGELY more and diversely populated than the paradigm-example nations you and others like to tout. Did you bother to read the links I posted just upthread?

The UK, as just one example, "games" their reporting. If the US reported as the UK does, our homicide-by-gun rate would be exactly in line with theirs. And that's with the UK having about the strictest gun-control laws on the planet, AND with them being a tiny, island nation with about 1/5 our population.

So, yup, we're already there. The chafing can end now!

Yayyy

the Fet

climber

Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La

Jul 15, 2014 - 12:10am PT

"In 2010, about 2,700 teens in the United States aged 16–19 were killed and almost 282,000 were treated and released from emergency departments for injuries suffered in motor-vehicle crashes" (http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/teen_drivers/teendrivers_factsheet.html);.

From the same CDC article: "In 2010, 22% of drivers aged 15 to 20 involved in fatal motor vehicle crashes were drinking."

So, in 2010, TEENS were drinking to the tune of 594 drunk-driving deaths AMONG THEMSELVES. That's not even counting the OTHER people they killed or maimed in such accidents.

Compare that to a grand total of 90 dead in school shootings throughout the ENTIRE 21st CENTURY so far.

In ONE YEAR drunk teens kill themselves and OTHER PEOPLE by the thousands! Yet you fixate on 90 dead over 14 years!?!

It's ALL tragic. But let's get some perspective, and YOU should be honest about what the real killer of young people really is.

Three million teens in this country are alcoholics (citation if you wish). And: "Despite declines in the number of young people involved in drunk driving fatalities, on average, more than 3 people under the age of 21 die each day in alcohol-impaired driving crashes. (Source: NHTSA/FARS, 2013)" (http://responsibility.org/drunk-driving/underage-drunk-driving-fatalities-under-21);

You want to talk about an epidemic of needless and utterly STUPID violence? Then talk about teenage drunk driving, which overshadows school shootings by an order of magnitude.

Of course, the media doesn't report as a "national crisis" every time some drunk kid kills himself, a carload of friends, and a few other in another vehicle. Nothing sexy or politically-loaded about such news. But THAT happens DAILY!

Oh, and is underage drinking illegal? Oh and is drinking while driving illegal? Oh and are stores required to card everybody before selling alcohol? Oh... uhhh... well....

Seems that the laws are not getting the job done. So much for LAWS making all the difference!

The decline in drunk driving among teens in the last several years is attributed entirely to educational programs.

As I KEEP saying, perhaps we should spend our resources on education rather than legislation. You know... do something that DOES WORK.

Come on now. Many federal laws have been enacted to reduce drunken driving. Tens of thousands of lives are saved each year, compared to a few decades ago. Education is just as imporrtant IMO but if anything drunken driving laws shows lives are saved through regulations.

Of course the media sensationalizes mass shootings. Just like plane crashes kill far less people than car crashes but you hear about the plane crashes.

Again I'm a gun owner it's ridiculous to say I hate guns. I hate the wrong peopl having guns but I think they are a right and fun. They just need to be regulated like cars or alcohol or anything else that has the potential for killing people.

Regulations work. Drunken driving proves it. The key is crafting the correct regulations that reduce murders with the minimum impact on law abiding gun owners. But the anti regulation crowd is so unreasonable it's tough to get anything useful accomplished.

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Jul 15, 2014 - 12:23am PT

Come on now. Many federal laws have been enacted to reduce drunken driving.

Come on now. What are the "many" federal laws to which you refer? Clinton signed a DUI law in 2000, but it applies ONLY on federal lands, such as national parks, military bases, and some off-road areas. Surely you are not touting that law as having "turned the tide" or even significantly contributed to the "turn around."

Causal chains please.

And, for the record, as I have repeatedly stated, I'm not opposed to gun regulation in general. I am opposed to the feds firing up yet another "war on..." that is doomed to expensive failure. The feds have little or no business in this "war." This is fundamentally a states' rights issue.

And, like you said, I think that Colorado has it about right. So, rather than to search and search for a reasonable slate of laws, why not on a state by state basis let them look at and model after Colorado. Here, 56/62 Sheriffs vehemently oppose the most recent gun-control laws, because they know that such laws as magazine-size-limits accomplish nothing of value. These Sheriffs also explicitly state that well-armed citizens make for a safer society. Are all these LEOs just wrong?

There's at least a decent chance that my two friends would still be alive today if California had been more "reasonable!" But that was a classic example of: "If guns are illegal, then only the criminals will have guns."

So, exactly WHAT is a "reasonable" slate of gun control laws, and do the feds HAVE to be the nexus of the whole thing?

Bargainhunter

climber

Jul 15, 2014 - 02:22am PT

FYI re: gang tattoos:

Teardrop tattoos next to the eye, like tombstones on the arm or marked out years, refer to "dead time" meaning time wasted in jail, or can mean sad time ( a friend who died, etc). It generally doesn't refer to the wearer having murdered someone, that's a Hollywood misappropriation.

So don't freak out and pull the trigger next time you are in line at 7-11 when you notice the guy next to you is sporting these type of tattoos. It's their fashion, and may seem silly to you, but give them a break, as no one else ever has.

People join gangs because they are the losers of the losers. No one else likes them, they are are failing in school, almost always have developmental delay, some have mental illness, substance abuse, come from struggling families, have poor coping skills, have difficulty performing the most basic jobs etc. They basically have no way out. Once jail time occurs to any lengthy degree, a revolving door of recidivism and dependence on the system usually ensues. And prison culture just breeds more antisocial behavior.

They are kind of like sad, neglected abused stray dogs. Instead of kicking them to the curb, consider showing a little compassion.

I know it's a little hard sometimes to focus when they have elaborate tattoos on their faces and act all tough, but instead of judging them, try to calm your inner judge and be kind. They get it so rarely.

madbolter1

Big Wall climber

Denver, CO

Jul 15, 2014 - 03:23am PT

bargainhunter, you have apparently done a bit of reading. So you are "knowledgeable." LOL

Maybe there is SOME part of the country where teardrops mean some of the things you say. But in the Inland Empire of SoCal, you don't know what you are talking about. The PRIMARY and virtually pervasive meaning is: murder. Over time the meaning may have evolved a BIT. But the teardrop in SoCal has always had ONE virtually ubiquitous meaning. And the LEOs knew it.

Regarding your "compassionate" idea, all I can say is ROFL.

I was born and raised in it. I was immersed in it first hand. I know the underside of the armpit in all its foul, unwashed, reeking stinkiness.

You treat these "poor things" like THEY are the victims. Nothing could be further from the truth! Even as very young people, they had CHOICES. I knew some that escaped the sucking vortex of the gangs. They got grants and even took out loans, and they GOT OUT and got educated. First-timers in their families going to college. But they DID it!

The others were not "victims." They chose a path because it fit the bent of their natures, and for many of them they were just another generation in the gangs, looking up to gangbanger daddy and even granddaddy. And those generations all CHOSE.

They consider themselves above the law, transcending the mores of society, and an elite society unto itself. They are at flat-out war with normal society, as well as with rival gangs.

Sure, this or that individual might have joined a gang because of feeling like a downtrodden loser. But by the time he is earning his first teardrop he is NOT feeling that way or perceiving normal society anything like a normal human being. HIS status rises ONLY through violence!

I have interacted with countless of these people. And, yes, IF you are on the IN or are known to be connected, you can have very good relations, and you might even be lulled into thinking that they are virtually domesticated and have normal values and responses. But bleeding hearts like yours never cease to amaze me, as you are so unaware of the VAST capacity for utterly outrageous violence they have. They live, eat, sleep, and breathe violence.

They respect strength above all. Strength for strength. The weak earn only their disdain.

I could tell almost countless stories. But you would not believe....

So, live in your dreamland... but HOPE that you don't happen to meet one in a dark alley, or even broad daylight. The boogieman does exist, and he does NOT want your coddling! He will take your psychobabbling as light entertainment and then GUT you as the feature film.

ONE story to give you a clue about how clueless you are....

---

My best friend had avoided the gangs and opened his own automotive machine shop business in Norwalk. He was doing well, but his brother (also named Richard, like me) was a wannabe gang-banger. My friend, John, told Richard countless times, "You are a bug to these guys. They do not respect you, and what you'll have to do to GET respect are things you don't want to do. They are just playing you and using you. Stay out of it!"

But Richard just became more and more of a trash-talker. He started packing, and he even took pot-shots at random people to prove how anti-social and "bad-ass" he was. He started rising in the ranks enough to be one of the "lower cockroaches," which is to say that he could hang around drinking, doing drugs, and getting laid with other scumbags at his lower level. He was tolerated.

John and I watched this progression for years, and we would say to each other, "No WAY Richard lives until he's 30."

To gain more status, Richard was given tasks to perform, always this or that illegal activity. And the tasks became more and more violent. "Collect this money and push the gun UP his nose. Make it bleed. Pull the hammer back and make him believe it's all over." Crap like that.

As he started feeling more and more bad-ass, Richard started believing that he really WAS a for-real bad-ass.

And ohhh, how he wanted to be!

But Richard had not yet BECOME a true, gangland bad-ass. He still had some innate respect for life left in him. And that made him nothing but MEAT for the first guy lacking that residual humanness. Richard could not yet imagine a truly cold-dead soul, devoid of respect for life. And that made him comparatively soft and weak.

One day Richard was talking all big and bad, but there were some for-real bad-ass gangbangers overhearing him. One of them walked up to him, said absolutely nothing, just put a gun against his heart, looked him in the eye, and pulled the trigger.

Richard = dead before he hit the ground. John and I knew who did it, as word got all around, and the cops even had suspicions.

John didn't even feel vengeful. Richard had it coming, and John and I knew it was coming. Richard was totally expendable, just a lower-level bug to be used and discarded at will. Nothing special, and lacking the "heart" to be a true, bad-ass gang-banger. Rejecting normal society, he couldn't make it in his chosen society, with is ruthlessly Darwinian if any society is!

---

Yeah, there will all sorts of analysis following up this story. Everybody will have their opinions. But I LIVED in that sort of world most of my life, and I know these people like most that talk, talk, talk do not.

Your bleeding heart, "social theory," "they are poor victims" idea is just a steaming pool of runny dung. For many of these guys, they would LITERALLY just as soon shoot you for no particularly reason as to look at you. And IF they do so, their gangland status only rises.

Wherever this element exists in society, ALL of the surrounding normal society is in danger. It breeds virtually random violence, and it FEEDS the black-market vices that breed yet more secondary violence.

A gun can't "make you safe," but it can at least give you a fighting chance, IF you know what you are doing and are aware of what to look out for. Without a gun, you are just meat to these guys. Hopefully YOU will go your whole life without one of them looking your way.

Most people literally cannot truly imagine a "human being" that can say "normal things" and act "normal" much of the time and APPEAR to have many typical responses, but that deep inside is just cold and dark and dead. I can't say it strongly enough: true gangbangers would just as soon gut you as look at you. You are NOTHING to them.

So, yeah, tell us ALL about what the teardrop "really" means, and you won't have said ANYTHING of substance at all.

If your point is just that we can't go kill everybody with a teardrop, that is OBVIOUS! Are you so obtuse that you actually thought I was advocating for that???

My point was that we CANNOT have a society that just sweepingly takes out the trash. So the only alternatives are cops EVERYWHERE with a pervasive police state or the average citizen being armed and capable of self-defense, which is the ONE thing gangbangers DO still respect among normal citizens.

Be armed, obviously capable, and not a trash-talker, and you can survive a LOT, even living in a cesspool. I know first hand.

I am NOT saying that every person needs to be packing all the time. It is a very personal choice that contemplates a lot of factors.

Just DON'T think you have some moral high ground because you believe your own situation to be so "secure" that the proxied police force is "all anybody should need."

State-level and reasonable gun-control laws? Sure. Why not? Much beyond that, however, and you've got a fight on your hands.