Page 19 of 333 FirstFirst ... 914151617181920212223242969119 ... LastLast
Results 361 to 380 of 6658

Thread: Ongoing gun violence/injury thread

  1. #361
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDeac View Post
    I believe there are way more people then you think who are #1 and #2 and far fewer people then you think you are "extremely anti-gun in almost every conceivable/rational circumstance".

    Most people you're arguing against believe the same things that you say you believe in your post.

    I've heard very few people talk about just rebooting the AWB. That said, I don't know what your point admitting that the weapons were obtained legally, but saying that changing the definition of legal would have no effect. If someone can't legal obtain weapons that make it easy to kill many people at a time, it would become harder to obtain those weapons which would act as a deterrent. If a mentally ill person can't just get it from a family member or Wal-Mart or the gun show last week, how hard are they going to try to get it?

    I don't think you know what you really believe. You want to be anti people who aren't as involved with guns as you are, yet you believe many of the common sense solutions that we do to the point that you contradict yourself.

    You say "damn weapon of destruction" then a few sentences later, say that trying to define what such a weapon is "won't solve shit".

    Just embrace common sense and work with people who may not love guns like you but want us all to live in a safer society.
    I don't follow your post, really. It's probably all of the run-on sentences and everything, but it's just hard to digest. Also, your counter arguments suggests that my post confused you. For example, ..."If a mentally ill person can't just get it from a family member or Wal-Mart or the gun show last week, how hard are they going to try to get it?"

    What are you talking about? They're probably going to try pretty f'ing hard. This is my point. There is no system in place to check for mental illness when someone goes and buys a gun. They check for felonies. So, an Adam Lanza, who clearly had a mental illness, can go into a gun store (not in CT or a handful of other states, but most of them) buy a gun, buy a shit ton of ammo, and go bonkers and kill a bunch of people and absolutely no whistles or bells would have gone off leading up to his hypothetical rampage. NPR had a big session on it Friday this week, and the gist was that basically the entire system is broken. You can't talk about gun control and gun laws without addressing this, but it seems like most everyone who is anti-gun just wants some kind of law put in place to solve all of our problems a la Europe/Canada. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban is a perfect example of why that just won't work. This is also what I'm arguing about; the fact that a group of politicians or a new law can/can't solve the problem at hand. I don't think they/it can, and clearly they/it haven't/hasn't been able to.

    And I would not use such a generous word as 'most' when describing the people I'm arguing against agreeing with the same things I've said so far. And being really/extremely anti-gun IMHO, is a symptom of #1 and #2 so I agree with you that there are more people in those categories than being 'extremely anti-gun.' How couldn't there be? What's frustrating is the people that mock someone else's right to have a gun and use it properly and I would say that the vast majority of posts (albeit an internet message board of course) are doing just that.

    Also, this comment is confusing..."That said, I don't know what your point admitting that the weapons were obtained legally, but saying that changing the definition of legal would have no effect. If someone can't legal obtain weapons that make it easy to kill many people at a time, it would become harder to obtain those weapons which would act as a deterrent..."

    Again, look at the Federal Assault Weapons ban. Gun manufacturers simply changed the way guns looked/folded/loaded, etc... and boom, it's not a gun outlawed by whatever stupid law Congress decided to pass. And, to the best of my knowledge, you can buy weapons directly at a gun show from someone with a FFL license without needing a FFL or Class III and totally side-step this issue (even prior to the 2004 sunset period) of not being allowed to have XYZ gun. The point being, if someone wants to buy a really destructive gun, they can. If another law is passed, gun manufacturers will just side-step it again, which is what led to my post about defining what was/wasn't legal as the wrong attitude.

    Also, saying that you think that I don't think I know what I really believe is pretty condescending. I'm pretty sure that I know what I believe. I also don't 'love' guns as you suggest. And I also don't see a lot of common sense from people on the other side of this argument. Ideas of mandating everyone to purchase a safe, or only being allowed to hold 10 bullets in a magazine instead of 20/30 just seems like the entirely wrong approach to me. It's probably because it hasn't worked so far...
    Last edited by SkyDivingDeacon; 01-13-2013 at 01:18 AM.

  2. #362
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
    PhDeac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    102,140
    Run-on sentences? Do you generally read children's books?

    No wonder simple points are confusing to you. But I'll keep this discussion going anyway.

    First, you want more thorough background checks. That aligns you with the "extremely anti-gun" people.

    I think your contention that the ease of getting a gun legally doesn't enable gun violence is flawed. Seriously flawed. The risk inherent in getting a gun illegally would deter people upfront, not to mention the cost, time, effort, etc. You brought up how easy it is to get a "damn weapon of destruction" and how often legal, easy to obtain weapons are used in mass killings, yet you don't think that contributes to the number of mass killings? That position just isn't logical.

    How many of these school shooters would plan these things out if they couldn't just get guns from their mother or brother or from some other legal source? Convenience motivates action. Making the use of guns less convenient would lead to fewer people using guns. I don't understand how that is confusing to you.

    Very very very few people are "extremely anti-gun" to the point that it's a straw man on the level of "Obama wants to take our guns and give them to the UN". It's hard to take someone seriously when that's where their argument begins.

    You're obsessed with the AWB. Again, most people realize it was a crap bill. From what I remember and have read, most of the loopholes were added in by gun right supporters to make it easier to get around the law. It's a common tool of "compromise" in Washington. "Yeah, we'll do this law, but it won't have any teeth". Using it as an example doesn't really make your point unless your point is doing nothing is better than doing something.

  3. #363
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDeac View Post
    Run-on sentences? Do you generally read children's books?

    No wonder simple points are confusing to you
    . But I'll keep this discussion going anyway.

    First, you want more thorough background checks. That aligns you with the "extremely anti-gun" people.

    I think your contention that the ease of getting a gun legally doesn't enable gun violence is flawed. Seriously flawed. The risk inherent in getting a gun illegally would deter people upfront, not to mention the cost, time, effort, etc. You brought up how easy it is to get a "damn weapon of destruction" and how often legal, easy to obtain weapons are used in mass killings, yet you don't think that contributes to the number of mass killings? That position just isn't logical.

    How many of these school shooters would plan these things out if they couldn't just get guns from their mother or brother or from some other legal source? Convenience motivates action. Making the use of guns less convenient would lead to fewer people using guns. I don't understand how that is confusing to you.

    Very very very few people are "extremely anti-gun" to the point that it's a straw man on the level of "Obama wants to take our guns and give them to the UN". It's hard to take someone seriously when that's where their argument begins.

    You're obsessed with the AWB. Again, most people realize it was a crap bill. From what I remember and have read, most of the loopholes were added in by gun right supporters to make it easier to get around the law. It's a common tool of "compromise" in Washington. "Yeah, we'll do this law, but it won't have any teeth". Using it as an example doesn't really make your point unless your point is doing nothing is better than doing something.
    Stopped reading here. You don't want a serious argument, apparently. You're too busy being a condescending know-it-all
    Last edited by SkyDivingDeacon; 01-13-2013 at 01:35 AM.

  4. #364
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
    PhDeac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    102,140
    You're the one who led off complaining about run-on sentences. Be glad I responded. You shot first. I responded in self-defense.

  5. #365
    I've had a gun pointed in my face and I've shot a number of guns. I'd be very happy if we had a way of banning all firearms tomorrow, but that's not feasible.

    We could however put in place laws which make owning a firearm at least as difficult as getting a driver's license. We could ban any semi automatic weapon and fully automatic weapon from sale tomorrow, implement a 1 year amnesty buy back with manufacturer value being paid back, and those possessing either after that year getting a mandatory jail sentence. We could ban public carrying of firearms, where you have the right to possess firearms in your house or business, but not in public or as a guest to a private business. We could treat firearms as an instrument of death, rather than something any asshole can buy/carry/use without any control. We could charge those who do not safely handle their firearms in private, resulting in injury/death.

    Or we could act like the words of some guys in the 18th Century are a guarantee that you can possess a firearm in any way without any consequence whatsoever.

  6. #366
    Quote Originally Posted by SkyDivingDeacon View Post
    Ideas of mandating everyone to purchase a safe, or only being allowed to hold 10 bullets in a magazine instead of 20/30 just seems like the entirely wrong approach to me. It's probably because it hasn't worked so far...
    Why is a magazine limit a bad approach, if part of a broader, more comprehensive plan? And why is a mandate to purchase a safe a bad idea? We mandate that everybody who drives has insurance. Isn't that similar?

  7. #367
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDeac View Post
    You're the one who led off complaining about run-on sentences. Be glad I responded. You shot first. I responded in self-defense.
    did rj steal your password mr sensitive?

  8. #368
    The guy on foxnews is rapidly destroying the pro-gun lobby.

  9. #369
    Quote Originally Posted by ONW View Post
    The guy on foxnews is rapidly destroying the pro-gun lobby.
    ??

  10. #370
    Quote Originally Posted by SkyDivingDeacon View Post
    I'm convinced that the people that are extremely anti-gun in almost every conceivable/rational circumstance have:

    1) Never been confronted with a real life threatening situation where a personal firearm would have either helped protect them or deescalated the situation

    2) Very little knowledge about guns and have probably never used one in a formal or informal setting

    As to this part of your post. If this were true, one would expect that those demographic groups who were most exposed to crime and violence would be most supportive of guns. In fact, although black people have a much, much higher rate of gun death than any other ethnic group (http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-deaths-and-race-statistics/) and overall a much greater exposure to crime, they support gun control at much higher rates than other groups (http://www.pewresearch.org/files/old...ntrol-2011.pdf).

    Why might that be?

  11. #371
    You can lump Barack Obama in with the "gun nuts" as his record, according to the Brady Foundation, is "Failure".

    He signed a bill that allowed concealed weapons into National Parks. Reagan, for example, voted against the inclusion of said rider in a bill.

    He has repeatedly stifled any member of his admin. from taking an active stance on gun legislation.

    Obama chose not to seek renewal of Clinton's '94 assault rifle ban.

    The President's unwillingness to take on any gun rights issue previous to Sandy Hook is a failure by any account and looks like rank opportunism on his part.

    All in all, the sitting President is right in there with the gun nuts...it apparently took the events of Sandy Hook to startle him awake. So have some compassion for the "gun nuts"...there is hope that they can change...

  12. #372

  13. #373
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDeac View Post
    You're the one who led off complaining about run-on sentences. Be glad I responded. You shot first. I responded in self-defense.
    Stand your ground, yo.

  14. #374
    Quote Originally Posted by CarlSpackler88 View Post
    Friend died, Cop charged with murder:

    DEPTFORD, N.J. - January 11, 2013 (WPVI) -- A Deptford, New Jersey police officer has been charged with first-degree murder in the shooting death of his friend.

    Officer James Stuart, 29, was charged on Friday in the death of 27-year-old David Compton, of Woodbury. Bail was originally set at $500,000, but was later reduced to $250,000.

    Compton had been hospitalized since the shooting at 5:00 a.m. Saturday and died at 1:00 a.m.Friday after being removed from life support.

    Investigators have offered few details about the circumstances of the shooting.
    Under New Jersey criminal code, a charge of first-degree murder means the suspect had the intention, or knew their actions, would result in death or the murder was premeditated.

    In a news release announcing the murder charge, the Gloucester County Prosecutor's Office said Stuart and Compton "had known each other for several years and that the shooting incident was not random."

    Sources previously told Action News that Stuart was holding the gun when it appears the weapon accidentally went off.

    Stuart's lawyer previously said that the shooting was a "terrible accident" and Stuart was praying for his friend's recovery.

    Stuart has been suspended from the force with pay.

    Compton's family released a statement through their attorney announcing his death on Friday.

    The statement read, in part, "It is with great sadness that we announce the passing of our beloved son and brother, David. While it was our hope that David would be able to overcome the injuries he suffered, it has become apparent that, despite receiving the finest medical care, his injuries were just too severe."

    The statement also said that Compton's organs would be donated.

    (Copyright 2013 WPVI-TV/DT. All Rights Reserved.)

    http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?se...cal&id=8950208

  15. #375
    Quote Originally Posted by CarlSpackler88 View Post
    but cops are so responsible!! i don't know first-hand of any instances where I saw a cop break the law when it was convenient for them! nor have I seen any instances of police arresting people on charges they knew probably weren't true, just to make life for the arrestee difficult! Nor have I ever seen a cop take a bribe! Nor have I ever seen a cop watch a (moral) law being broken and done nothing! In fact, i've never seen a cop act in anything but good faith. They're always polite and never accusatory.

    anyway despite the fact that I obviously have seen every one of these things, and my obvious distaste for cops* aside, to get back on topic the larger point is this: humans are not responsible gun owners. the species has proven itself too capricious to be continually disseminating things like firearms. our nature makes 100% safe gun use 100% of the time impossible.

    *caveat: police with four year degrees or better who write the bare minimum of traffic tickets to keep their jobs, do not mistake legality with morality, ignore "victimless" crimes, appreciate the serious flaws in our justice system compared to other developed countries, and who generally only make arrests for serious crimes are not only fine by me, they are exemplary individuals. But that sort of cop is very rare. The job itself tends to weed out those types.
    Last edited by dmcheatw; 01-14-2013 at 02:22 PM.

  16. #376
    Man with concealed carry permit accidentally shoots wife at restaurant

    http://www.kansascity.com/2013/01/08...-shooting.html

  17. #377
    Quote Originally Posted by BeachBumDeac View Post
    Man with concealed carry permit accidentally shoots wife at restaurant

    http://www.kansascity.com/2013/01/08...-shooting.html
    responsible

  18. #378
    I disagree with you
    ImTheCaptain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    40,628
    "accident"

  19. #379
    Quote Originally Posted by ImTheCaptain View Post
    "accident"
    "restaurant"

  20. #380
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDeac View Post
    You're the one who led off complaining about run-on sentences. Be glad I responded. You shot first. I responded in self-defense.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •