Originally posted by Cow Poke
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
A Sane Discussion About Gun Violence
Collapse
X
-
The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
-
Originally posted by Jedidiah View PostThere is too much leeway in what is negligent in securing their firearms. In my opinion if your house is locked and your gun is inside it is secured. If someone breaks into your house and steals your gun it is on him.
Are you suggesting that firearms should somehow be exempt from this?The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostNo - I think you are mischaracterizing the discussion. There are multiple factors involved, obviously, but guns is one of them.
Those strongly advocating for gun rights seem to continuously insist that we NOT look at the guns.
The fact is, we have to look at the guns AND all of the other factors. But to NOT look at the tool is, IMO, not a reasonable way of proceeding.
When we were poisoned by tylenol in unsecured bottles - we looked at the bottles
When we were poisoned by lead - we looked at the lead
When we were kills by automobiles - we looked at the automobiles
When babies died in cribs - we looked at the cribs
So when people are being killed by guns - we should be looking at the guns - as well as the people using them and their reason for using them.
The lead pipes were replaced with other kinds of pipes - we didn't totally abandon piping water into and through our houses
The cars didn't drive themselves and kill people, and cars were not banned - just made safer, and more focus on the drivers
The cribs are still being manufactured and sold - but modified to be safer.
In none of these cases did we say "let's ban bottles/pipes/cars/cribs.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostI have to acknowledge we have no data on this. My "gut" says that forcing a shooter to reload more frequently has to slow the carnage, at least to some degree - without impacting gun owners more than a bit of inconvenience. But since studies on this have not been funded - we just don't know. You cannot substantiate your position - and I cannot substantiate mine. Hence my #1 item: fund studies that will help us figure this out.
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostI agree that the absolute way in which Teal worded her post is unwarranted.
MY post was about reducing the probability. It was NOT an absolute. If we can put in place a law that has the potential to reduce the probability of a mass shooting, without significantly impacting anyone's freedom (i.e., lockup your guns, or face the consequences if they are used to harm others), why would anyone be against it? We are weighing the inconvenience and cost of having to maintain a reasonable gun locker against possible loss of life. How can these even begin to compare?The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostA dedicated killer will find a way to kill - there is no question about it. But making tools that make that killing easy readily available seems to me an exercise in folly, especially when there is really no reason why these tools HAVE to be readily avaiable.
A man walks onto a plane a tries to blow it up with a bomb in his shoes - and now EVERY person boarding a plane in the U.S. has to remove and screen their shoes - and this is seldom challenged.
Why can't you see that?
But when a teenager blows away 17 kids with an assault riffle
and we say, "gee, maybe we should look at how easy it is to get assault rifles?"
we suddenly have a problem? Because we're talking about guns instead of shoes and guns are in the constitution but shoes are not?
The logic of this escapes me completely...The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostI have to acknowledge we have no data on this. My "gut" says that forcing a shooter to reload more frequently has to slow the carnage, at least to some degree -
without impacting gun owners more than a bit of inconvenience. But since studies on this have not been funded - we just don't know. You cannot substantiate your position - and I cannot substantiate mine. Hence my #1 item: fund studies that will help us figure this out.
You're not going to make millions of high capacity magazines disappear.
you're not going to make potential criminals cooperate by using limited capacity magazines.
Even if you DID manage to do the above, it might just take a few more seconds to kill just as many people.
This is an exercise in futility, IMOHBAO.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostDemi - can you please take the flaming elsewhere? So far, this thread has been pretty civil. I'd like to keep it that way.
Last edited by RumTumTugger; 02-24-2018, 01:45 PM.Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostSure.
I'm not them - and you started this thread about guns.
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostThe other factors get handwaved, and it keeps coming back to guns. So much so, that the gun rights crowd sees this as simply an excuse to kill 2nd Amendment protections.
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostThere is no "right" to have easily openable medicine bottles, or lead pipes, and we didn't ban cars, and there is no right to manufacture and market unsafe cribs.
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostThe bottles didn't kill anybody, the focus was on 'how do we make it more obvious that this bottle has been tampered with".
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostThe lead pipes were replaced with other kinds of pipes - we didn't totally abandon piping water into and through our houses
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostThe cars didn't drive themselves and kill people, and cars were not banned - just made safer, and more focus on the drivers
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostThe cribs are still being manufactured and sold - but modified to be safer.
In none of these cases did we say "let's ban bottles/pipes/cars/cribs.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostUmm...you're taking an extreme case to make a general argument - it doesn't work, IMO. The vast majority of the population cannot reload at this kind of speed. So if the magazine holds 8 rounds instead of 15 rounds - THIS shooter won't be significantly impacted - but the vast majority of shooters will be. It's an obstacle that helps to reduce the carnage, without significantly impacting gun owners, except for the inconvenience of having to swap magazines more frequently. So we're talking convenience versus lives. To me - that's a no brainer.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostNo. I have to resist this position. That is how the right and the gun-advocate crowd is positioning it - but that is not what many (most?) of us looking to deal with the issue of gun violence are trying to do. Many (most?) of us want to find ways to reduce violence due to guns, while preserving gun rights. Frankly, most of the people (like me) resent having every attempt to look at this issue characterized as "repealinh the 2nd amendment" or "grabbing our guns." Those are NRA mantras. They ar enot the reality for many (most?) of us.
CP, all of us have the right to drink water from our faucets believing what we are safe doing so. A company that installs lead pipes knowing it will harm the consumer is criminally negligent.
We all have the right put put our children to bed believing the crib were are putting them in is safe if it was solf to us. To suggest otherwise is...odd...at the very least. To suggest that a company that continues to manufacture cribs that can strangle children after it has been determined that spacing the bars larger than X makes them unsafe is criminally negligent.
And likewise we shoould be asking, "how did the shooter gain such easy access to firearms?
Nor should we completely abandon firearms - but perhaps the ones that do so much damage...as with the lead pipes?
And likewise should we be asking, "how do we make firearms safer? Smaller magazines?
Finger-print triggers? Better ways of securing them? Better ways of identifying those most likely to use them to do harm?
And Few of us are advocating "banning" guns. Some are - but most are not. To characterize the entire discussion as about "banning guns" is simply not a correct characterization.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostOK, think about that for a second. We have broadcast to the WHOLE WORLD that shoes will be analyzed prior to boarding a plane. So, you think terrorists are going to simply give up? OR maybe - as you said - dedicated killer will find a way to kill, and he'll simply change his tactics.
Why can't you see that?
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostAnd not an "assault rifle", but an AR-15.
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostOR, we could realize how easy it is to obtain semi-automatic weapons, and realize that WHILE contemplating that, we need to focus on something more reasonable and quicker to implement.
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostThe "shoes" analogy is silly - have you heard of the underwear bomber? And he was even on "watch lists", but still boarded a flight. So much for "national databases", eh?
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostI noticed.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mountain Man View PostThat doesn't negate my point. Anyone can learn to do it with sufficient practice.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostIt might make you feel better, but in actual practice, the difference is insignificant. Besides, this assumes - again - that ALL high capacity magazines disappear, and that a determined shooter can't obtain some even if they were outlawed.
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostI can take you to a shooting range with an AR-15, and I can show you that - even with less fingers on my hands than you have - I can put a tremendous number of rounds downrange whether I have 8-round magazines or 30. Or, I can just bring a backpack full of semi-automatic pistols. If I'm forced to "slow down" because I'm having to reload more frequently, then I know I have to focus more on "making every shot count".
You're not going to make millions of high capacity magazines disappear.
you're not going to make potential criminals cooperate by using limited capacity magazines.
Even if you DID manage to do the above, it might just take a few more seconds to kill just as many people.
This is an exercise in futility, IMOHBAO.The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King
I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas
Comment
-
Originally posted by carpedm9587 View PostI can. That does not mean that you stop throwing as many obstacles up as you can - short of violating individual rights. Look, CP, I am the first to say "why are we compromising so many of our civil liberties because 'the terrorists might get us.' " When we do so - the terrosist wins. But we are talking about finding ways to put reasonable controls in place that do NOT violate an innocent citizen's right to bear arms. So submitting to a background check before you can purchase a firearm does not restrict you right to bear arms - it provies a means for screaning out those who ought NOT bear arms. Requiring reasonable gun astorage does not prohibit your right to bear arms, it redices the probability that someone who should nto have it will take the device and do harm. And so forth.
We seem to be splitting hairs. The AR-15 is a stripped down version of the M16 - semi-automatic instead of automatic.
HOWEVER, I will try harder to ignore your (IMOHBAO) misuse of the phrase "assault rifle".
I can think of no world in which a 19 year old, with a semi-developed frontal cortex, should have access to such a weapon without adult supervision.
Like...?
I have. I think the only thing that stopped them from implementing strip-searches for underwear bombs was the impracticality of such a solution. But you will note that the push for "body scanners" followed shortly thereafter. And no one says that a database is "perfect."
Any system will have limitations. Pointing to a few isolated "see - they got through" does not mean the system itself is nonsensical.
It makes sense if it reduces the bulk of the treat - even if it does not reduce all of it. We seem to be back to "binary thinking."
Perhaps because there is not logic...?The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Mountain Man, Yesterday, 06:07 PM
|
11 responses
56 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by Sam
Yesterday, 09:41 PM
|
||
Started by seer, Yesterday, 09:26 AM
|
6 responses
35 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 11:28 AM
|
||
Started by seer, Yesterday, 07:47 AM
|
8 responses
56 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
Yesterday, 09:58 AM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, 05-06-2024, 02:53 PM
|
25 responses
146 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
Yesterday, 06:50 AM
|
||
Started by CivilDiscourse, 05-06-2024, 10:34 AM
|
31 responses
129 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Yesterday, 07:36 AM |
Comment