Random Thoughts Again

Nat@PSU
Posts: 287
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2017 5:56 pm

Re: Random Thoughts Again

Postby Nat@PSU » Fri Feb 23, 2018 11:45 am

Carl Spackler wrote:Yet, as dad notes, violent people and sadly violent children are murdering other children or are killing themselves, on school grounds at an alarming rate. Therefore until we can ferret out the violent/crazy/depressed/murderers we had better protect our children while at school. This requred armed guards because you can't fight an enemy with your fists when they bring a firearm, legally purchased, stolen, illegally purchased or manufactured out of thin air. It makes no difference, the violent child is there to kill no manner the tool used. Take away their firearms (which you can't do as they will acquire one or more on the street if their desire to murder is great enough or use another tool). I understand you can inquire as to the method and manner as to build a bomb on the INTERNET SO should we ban the Internet? Shut it down? Because miscreants misuse it? IT's the same argument in my thinking. Of course not but some will misuse it to kill, the 911 terrorists communicated over the Internet for years prior to murdering nearly 3000 Americans.


We do not agree on a lot with respect to this issue and that is ok, but I take particular umbrage with this point: if something isn't 100% effective then it isn't useful? I don't get why we try to apply this standard to gun violence where we wouldn't accept it elsewhere.

Seatbelts and airbags aren't 100% effective in ending driving deaths, but they mitigate a lot of them, so they are a valuable tool.

Why we can't have a similar approach to gun control, with respect to semi-automatic rifles and other sensible restrictions on the 2nd amendment blows my mind. Why can't we make it tougher for people like this to get a gun? Why can't we remove this type of weapon from the marketplace? Does that mean we shouldn't apply resources towards trying to identify these types of people? Of course not. But we seem to ignore this unimpeachable fact: without access to a weapon like this, this man would not have been able to level the type of havoc that he did. The immediate responses to this are "he could have used a car, he could have used a knife, he could have used a <insert any other violent method here>". That just doesn't hold water. If these are all comparably devastating ways to inflict death, why is it that we keep seeing people use the same tool (i.e. AR-15)?

There are a lot of moving parts to things like this, but the fact that a portion of the population refuses to identify that the proliferation of semi-automatic rifles, the ease with which they are attained, and the devastating nature of their deployment isn't the single most obvious common factor, is, well, mind blowing.

This kid had some sort of clear mental defect that made him want to try to kill as many people as possible. The rifle he was able to buy facilitated that mass murder. Obviously we should seek to identify people who are a threat to society, but to me, it is his access to the weapon that seems the most logical thing to address.
- Nat

Let's Go State!!

Blue&White
Posts: 2597
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:01 am

Re: Random Thoughts Again

Postby Blue&White » Fri Feb 23, 2018 12:07 pm

This kid had some sort of clear mental defect that made him want to try to kill as many people as possible. The rifle he was able to buy facilitated that mass murder. Obviously we should seek to identify people who are a threat to society, but to me, it is his access to the weapon that seems the most logical thing to address.

And finding potential mass murderers is a dubious proposition at best. How do you do that? How do we know who is disturbed and who is not? We keep talking about this kid in Florida who clearly had problems but most of these shooters are not nearly so obvious. And, this kid wasn't even obvious to the family he lived with. They had no idea he was capable of this.

Most of these shooters don't give you a lot of warning. You don't know it's coming. No one seemed to know that Stephen Paddock was stockpiling a small arsenal and was planning on shooting over 500 innocent people from a hotel window until it actually happened. the idea that we are going to "find" these people is ridiculous. We're not. The problem isn't the screening, its' the availability of these weapons of mass destruction to the general public.
Is it baseball season yet?

Carl Spackler
Posts: 437
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 3:22 pm

Re: Random Thoughts Again

Postby Carl Spackler » Fri Feb 23, 2018 2:09 pm

Blue&White wrote:This kid had some sort of clear mental defect that made him want to try to kill as many people as possible. The rifle he was able to buy facilitated that mass murder. Obviously we should seek to identify people who are a threat to society, but to me, it is his access to the weapon that seems the most logical thing to address.

And finding potential mass murderers is a dubious proposition at best. How do you do that? How do we know who is disturbed and who is not? We keep talking about this kid in Florida who clearly had problems but most of these shooters are not nearly so obvious. And, this kid wasn't even obvious to the family he lived with. They had no idea he was capable of this.

Most of these shooters don't give you a lot of warning. You don't know it's coming. No one seemed to know that Stephen Paddock was stockpiling a small arsenal and was planning on shooting over 500 innocent people from a hotel window until it actually happened. the idea that we are going to "find" these people is ridiculous. We're not. The problem isn't the screening, its' the availability of these weapons of mass destruction to the general public.


Apparently I'm misunderstood. I completely agree the background check currently used is seriously flawed and has holes the size of swiss cheese to run through to obtain a firearm illegally. That is why I posted a form and the holes I could see in it with a three min. survey. While it needs to be fixed as best we can, better reporting into the database where the checks are approved with mental health info, illegal drug use data, etc. to narrow down the problem.

We need to guard our schools with armed guards who are ready to take out a murdering terrorist as background checks don't stop stolen firearms, arms bought on the street illegally, etc. I've already volunteered to sit at a school door to guard against these little terrorists who obtain a weapon of any type and try to enter a school or if they have made it past the door go inside to apprehend them or stop them with force, whichever is needed to save innocent lives.

I do not want honest, law abiding citizens constrained from equipping their homes with defensive firearms and other accouterments which will assist in keeping their families safe from incursion by unwanted, unwelcome, murderous people of any type or age. I also use the same firearms to dispatch varmints on our property as do my neighbors. How is my position that different from (yours meaning everyone posting above, not just B&W) beyond community size and type and the police response time which is up to 30 mins out here?
So I got that going for me...which is nice. It's a cross between Kentucky Bluegrass, Featherbed Bent and Northern California Sensimilla so you can play 36 holes on it,take it home at night and get stoned to the begesses belt

LioninVa
Posts: 674
Joined: Tue Aug 15, 2017 11:49 am

Re: Random Thoughts Again

Postby LioninVa » Fri Feb 23, 2018 3:37 pm

The problem with this debate (in general, not here) is that opposing sides have no intention of compromise. One suggests legislation to restrict, say AR-15’s and the other hear the word ‘ban’ and replies that criminals will get guns anyway. So, how about we turn the same conversation to immigrations and change “AR-15” to “wall”. Is the same concept no longer true? Will those yearns my to be free, or just to gtfo of Mexico not still driven to foul immigration. Why spend the countless billions of dollars on a wall that won’t do a damn thing?

Asking for a friend...

Blue&White
Posts: 2597
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:01 am

Re: Random Thoughts Again

Postby Blue&White » Sat Feb 24, 2018 7:52 am

NRA slams gun-background system flaws it helped create

Like I've been saying: any problems with background checks for gun purchases is a feature and not a bug.

I was not aware that it was considered to be unconstitutional to require the states to provide information to the NICS. I think the next step for activists is to push their state legislators to pass laws that require it. The federal government can't compel the states to provide the information but the states can certainly compel themselves.

It also looks like the NRA may have picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue. More and more about their efforts that contradict their current words are coming out. A number of companies are walking away from them. And then there are the allegations that they may have helped funnel money from Russia to Republican campaigns.

I don't know where any of this is going, but I'm enjoying watching the train go by.
Is it baseball season yet?

Crowbar
Posts: 694
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 12:54 pm

Re: Random Thoughts Again

Postby Crowbar » Sat Feb 24, 2018 8:08 am

Yeah, it is beginning to look like the NRA has FINALLY met its match. Stoneman Douglas may have been the straw that broke the camel's back. It's a shame it took this much bloodshed though.

With that said, I am truly amazed and inspired by the students and youth of this country who are leading the charge and not backing down. Kudos to them for rising up against the adults who have routinely let them down.
National Champions 1911, 1912, 1969, 1981, 1982, 1986, 1994

Carl Spackler
Posts: 437
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 3:22 pm

Re: Random Thoughts Again

Postby Carl Spackler » Sat Feb 24, 2018 2:06 pm

Blue&White wrote:NRA slams gun-background system flaws it helped create

Like I've been saying: any problems with background checks for gun purchases is a feature and not a bug.

I was not aware that it was considered to be unconstitutional to require the states to provide information to the NICS. I think the next step for activists is to push their state legislators to pass laws that require it. The federal government can't compel the states to provide the information but the states can certainly compel themselves.

It also looks like the NRA may have picked the wrong week to stop sniffing glue. More and more about their efforts that contradict their current words are coming out. A number of companies are walking away from them. And then there are the allegations that they may have helped funnel money from Russia to Republican campaigns.

I don't know where any of this is going, but I'm enjoying watching the train go by.



There was no background check process whatsoever until the current process proposed by the NRA. I understand the leftist hate for them, they represent a bogey man to the left but to condemn them for initiating the ONLY thing that attempts to screen gun purchases is disingenuous.
So I got that going for me...which is nice. It's a cross between Kentucky Bluegrass, Featherbed Bent and Northern California Sensimilla so you can play 36 holes on it,take it home at night and get stoned to the begesses belt

Blue&White
Posts: 2597
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:01 am

Re: Random Thoughts Again

Postby Blue&White » Sat Feb 24, 2018 2:24 pm

You may wish to do a little research on the NRA and the history of the background checks. They proposed instant background checks in the early 90s when Bill Clinton was pushing for 7 day wait periods in his proposed assault rifle ban. They pushed hard for something that the existing technology could not support.

You want to like guns, that's ok. You're entitled to like guns. But, claiming the NRA was behind any limitation on the ability of anyone to buy guns is not ok because it is flat out not true.
Is it baseball season yet?

sameoldlama
Posts: 660
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2017 7:43 am

Re: Random Thoughts Again

Postby sameoldlama » Sat Feb 24, 2018 2:43 pm

Personally, I see the this debate as a personal rights / ideology issues and the solution going forward primarily as a database management issue / government execution issue.

I think we all enjoy the personal freedom and liberty our country affords individuals. I believe it is a cornerstone of what makes America a great country to live in. When people have a great deal of personal freedom you accept that some people will make good choices, some will make poor choices and some will make catastrophic choices. In my view the role of government is to set limits to allow people who make good decisions to enjoy their freedom to the fullest extent possible while protecting the populace form the consequences of people who make poor or catastrophic choices by removing their freedom to exercise a right when their behavior dictates they present an unreasonable risk to others.

If we want to be a free people we have to accept some level of risk that the government cannot always protect us from people who will misuse and abuse their freedom. Expecting a guaranteed outcome can only be established through authoritarianism. I've seen how that works and I'm not interested.

I will repeat my previous argument - it is easy for all of us to call for gun restrictions and bans. The vast majority of us don't exercise this right. But as long as someone is acting in a lawful manner it's not up to me to tell them how they should exercise a given right.

Every argument I see here and the justification for action in reducing gun rights could be applied to calling for more severe restrictions on the use of alcohol.

Alcohol presents are far greater toll in the number of DUI fatalities, as a factor in sexual assaults and as a factor in physical assaults than mass shootings. By far. People have argued "there is no need for anyone to have an assault rifle" - well there is no need for anyone to drink whiskey or high alcohol content beverages "they're just for getting drunk". We could argue we should make the DUI threshold 0.00. We could call for a limit of the amount of alcohol a person can purchase be limited to two drinks / day. We could mandate all cars have interlocks placed on then and cars would not start if a threshold alcohol limit was detected. All these proposals could be made in the name of reducing the negative impact of people making poor choices with alcohol. We can make arguments to put greater limits on speech and basically every right we have. If you want to be consistent you should be calling for alcohol restrictions just as loudly as gun restrictions.

We vest authority in our government to allow those who exercise good judgment to enjoy their freedom, to ensure those who use poor judgment to be the sole bearer of the consequences of their poor choices and to understand they risk losing a freedom if they fail to start making better choices. And we expect to government to identify and remove from society those people who would make catastrophic choices that would bring harm to others.

If we want to entrust the government to enact a very thorough vetting process for gun ownership through the purchase, ownership and use phases that's their function and purpose. Manage it via an extensive database which tracks all gun purchases (including shows, private sales) that correlates activity subsequent to purchase that may represent the person is a risk to others (contact with LE, mental health issues, high volume gun/ammo purchasing, verbal or on line threats). Require all gun owners to have a national ID with a bar code that gets swiped every time they buy a gun, buy a bullet, have contact with LE, go before a judge, get a script for psychiatric medication and any other known correlating factor. It would seem to me you should be able to piggyback onto the state driver's license / ID cards - if the info is tagged to that you should have at point of contact data generated at every key marker.

I just don't feel our rights as a society should be defined by criminals who abuse those rights. We've paid a mint and ceded authority to our chosen representatives to ferret those people out - they need to do their job instead of further restricting my freedom.
Wendall : That's very linear Sheriff
Ed Tom : Age will flatten a man Wendall

Blue&White
Posts: 2597
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 10:01 am

Re: Random Thoughts Again

Postby Blue&White » Sat Feb 24, 2018 3:25 pm

I conceptually agree with you. But, I disagree that our freedom necessitates the availability of military grade weapons that have no purpose other than death. They are not accurate enough for hunting and that issue makes them a bad choice for home protection.

I'm not a gun person but I get some people are. I have a lot of neighbors who hunt. Not my thing but I would object to any attempt to outlaw the guns they use for sport. Most of the guns used in these mass shootings are not sport guns. They are not guns you use to protect your home. They exist for one purpose - mass death (and maybe to boost the egos of guys who suffer from feelings of inadequacy). We are never going to eliminate all the risk. That's the cost of a free society and I'm ok with it. Which is why I object to racial profiling, bans based on religion, etc. You'll find many (clearly not all) of the people screaming about guns and their freedoms have little objection to many of the other limitations we've seen government push through. There are some massive contradictions.

As for cars and alcohol, neither is inherently deadly. And, we've gone to great lengths to spread the accountability to people who are irresponsible and those who enable them. All of us have a stake in keeping drunks off the road. Serve a buddy too many beers in your home, you're on the hook if he causes an accident and hurts someone. With guns, it's the opposite. We've gone out of our way to protect people from any accountability. And then we marvel at the negligence and indifference. Go figure.
Is it baseball season yet?