First Gun Confiscation Killing...

[Littlejoe]

The only meaningful discussion is about what legislation can reduce or limit the carnage. I have offered up the sorts of legislation that can be done without compromising the 2nd amendment, that has had an effect where implemented, but which is fought tooth and nail by the gun lobbies.

I think the resistance is due to several factors. First is the rhetoric from hard gun control advocates that want very strict laws enacted, but we see them doing the "Camel's Nose in the Tent" incremental approach. We saw it happen with Abortion, we've seen it with Assisted Suicide (and it's cousin Euthanasia now gaining momementum), and other things like illegal seizures of assets of people suspected of but not charged with a crime. Those of us who take our gun ownership seriously, who believe in our Constitutional right to protect ourselves and our families, who hunt and shoot as a serious hobby, get worried with this "Camel's Nose idiom". Do I oppose banning bump stocks? No, not really. Do I oppose banning AR's? Yes I do. Many hunters use them for several varieties of animals. They are very effective for wild hogs which are destroying thousands of acres of habit here in Texas. Texas hunters are currently the main (almost the only) controlling factor to the wild hog populations explosion currently going on. Can we make them harder to get for young people? Maybe, but, why is 21 better than 18 in you opinion?

And the cold hard fact it, it may not be enough. There may not be a way in a society that devalues human life, that puts one's own needs above everyone elses, that pretends common decency is weakness, that mocks others just for the fun of it (sound like any people you know posting on this board?) to stop mass shooting without a repeal of the 2nd amendment. That may very well be the choice.

Yes, as Sparko's video talked about, it's not the weapons, it's this age of devaluing human life that is the key. Why did guys have guns in their gun racks at my High School and yet one was NEVER used to commit a crime? Because it's not the gun, it's the heart of people. We need to get back to promoting common decency, discouraging violent entertainment, glorifying those who commit horrific crimes. That will change things more than any laws will.

We live with constantly increasing carnage year over year, month over month, or we recognize we are not a people worthy of having unfettered access to guns and we pull back from that. That times have changed and there is no way to have an unregulated potential militia as a protection against an invasion in an age of machine guns, tanks and atom bombs.

This hyperbolic rhetoric gets you nothing Jim. Increasing carnage? So the numbers went from 8 dead in 1982 to a high of 112 killed in 2017. But, this year the number is half that. As horrific as mass killings of any kind are, that is such a MINOR drop in the bucket compared to other deaths that it boggles the mind that it gets the attention it does. You poo-pooed the idea that death by the flu was in any way as horrific as a mass shooting. Tell that to the parent whose 3 year old is dying from it. They would probably say "it doesn't matter how my child is dying....they are DYING!" Thousands a year die from car crashes, heart disease, stroke, cancer (Talk about a horrific illness...). Yes we try to do something to decrease those. As we should with guns. But, as previously stated, there are tons of restrictions already on the books, and more every year, yet we see no impact on the death toll. Australia with it's touted gun ban, had the worst mass shooting since 1996 this year...of course no one was armed to prevent it so...

OTOH, those of you that are so concerned about your 'right' to own a gun that you are willing to fight any and all efforts to curb the carnage have the blood of those killed on your hands.


Jim

And with that last statement, many of us who have long respected you, your posting style, and your opinions, have lost all that respect...


I have a friend who's an ex-marine. He once told me that other countries are afraid to invade the US (a la "Red Dawn") because they know that so many Americans are armed. Just parading down the street would be a massacre for them. Numbers matter in a battle. Superior weapons have a definite advantage, but are by no means decisive.


We feel those of you who want to curb OUR ability to fight back as the one's having blood on their hands. Notice that most of these shooting happen in gun free zones? There's a reason for that.

[Sparko]

Ah - see. Reduce mass shootings. Different question. How to reduce mass shootings.

Well, actually that is relatively simple. Countries with reduced access or very limited public access to guns have very few mass shooting events. So one way would be to severely limit access to guns.

So what you really want to know is not what sorts of laws could reduce the number of mass shootings, but what sorts of laws could reduce the number of mass shootings without severely impacting ease of access to guns or requiring a modification or repeal of the 2nd amendment.

And there is where it gets difficult isn't it. What data is there that could show what might work when every effort to try to reduce the number of mass shootings by changing the laws is thwarted by the gun lobbies?

Nevertheless, some have made good efforts at doing just that. The NYT has a decent article that plots gun laws against public support and potential effectiveness as ranked by experts in criminology, public health, and law that have studied the issue in depth:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...ould-help.html


Jim

Jim, you are just arguing via weblink, and it is behind a paywall at that. The NYT informs me that my "free" access is up for the month and I need to pay.

You need to summarize the content, not just argue with a link to it.

[Roy]

So one person, who probably shouldn't have a gun because he was mentally ill proves that legal gun owners are the problem, when millions of legal gun owners don't go around shooting people?

Yes. He was a legal gun owner, and he shot people. He's not the only one. Therefore legal gun owners are responsible for some mass shootings. They are at least part of the problem.

I guess that means we should ban legal drivers on the road because someone did a hit and run and had a legal driver's license.

No, it means that legal drivers are responsible for some hit-and runs, just as legal gun owners are responsible for some mass shootings; and so legal drivers are part of the hit-and-run problem just as legal gun owners are part of the mass shooting problem.

I expect you'll dismiss this as nit-picking rather than admit that legal gun owners contribute to the mass shooting problem.

[Sparko]

Yes. He was a legal gun owner, and he shot people. He's not the only one. Therefore legal gun owners are responsible for some mass shootings. They are at least part of the problem.No, it means that legal drivers are responsible for some hit-and runs, just as legal gun owners are responsible for some mass shootings; and so legal drivers are part of the hit-and-run problem just as legal gun owners are part of the mass shooting problem.

I expect you'll dismiss this as nit-picking rather than admit that legal gun owners contribute to the mass shooting problem.

I agree that legal gun owners do commit murder. But not in nearly the numbers that illegal gun owners do. And the number of legal gun owners who do mass shooting is not even a fraction of 1% of legal gun owners who don't misuse their guns, or who actually use their guns to stop criminals. So why should legal gun owners be punished for what a tiny fraction of gun owners do? Should you restrict the use of cars of all drivers because a tiny fraction use cars to commit crimes even though they have a legal license?

There are about 50 million gun owners in the US. The number of legal gun owners who ever committed mass shootings can probably be counted on one hand. heck let's say two hands. ten. That's .00002% of gun owners.

[lilpixieofterror]

Yes. He was a legal gun owner, and he shot people. He's not the only one. Therefore legal gun owners are responsible for some mass shootings. They are at least part of the problem.No, it means that legal drivers are responsible for some hit-and runs, just as legal gun owners are responsible for some mass shootings; and so legal drivers are part of the hit-and-run problem just as legal gun owners are part of the mass shooting problem.

I expect you'll dismiss this as nit-picking rather than admit that legal gun owners contribute to the mass shooting problem.

I know this might amaze you, but you’re responsible for your own actions, not the actions of others.

[Roy]

My words don't make you a dishonest schmuck, but your lie-by-omission does.

Irony at its finest.

Provide an example of a lie-by-omission to support that veiled accusation, or retract it.

Also, since you're responding to my post to Sparko, any comments about OCD will be laughed at.

[lilpixieofterror]

Provide an example of a lie-by-omission to support that veiled accusation, or retract it.

Also, since you're responding to my post to Sparko, any comments about OCD will be laughed at.

How about your tendency to read the worst of your opponents?

[Sparko]

Provide an example of a lie-by-omission to support that veiled accusation, or retract it.

Also, since you're responding to my post to Sparko, any comments about OCD will be laughed at.

wait, you called her a liar first, then when she makes a comment about how ironic that is, you demand her to support it? You just admitted you called her a liar. I don't see your support.

[Roy]

This hyperbolic rhetoric gets you nothing Jim. Increasing carnage? So the numbers went from 8 dead in 1982 to a high of 112 killed in 2017. But, this year the number is half that.

A link from your own source lists 80 fatalities this year so far. That's a lot more than half of 112, and there's still 6 weeks left to go.

[Roy]

wait, you called her a liar first, ...

No. She quoted my reply to Littlejoe.

I don't see your support.

Here.

(4 edits because I seem to have forgotten how to use quote function )

[Roy]

Provide an example of a lie-by-omission to support that veiled accusation, or retract it.

Also, since you're responding to my post to Sparko, any comments about OCD will be laughed at.

How about your tendency to read the worst of your opponents?

Insufficient.

[lilpixieofterror]

Insufficient.

AKA I nailed it and you don’t want to admit it. Thanks for playing.

[Sparko]

No. She quoted my reply to Littlejoe.Here.

(4 edits because I seem to have forgotten how to use quote function )

not even close. He did not lie. You might want to read our rules. And you are supposed to support your accusation at the time you make it. And her saying "Ironic" is not even close to calling you a liar.

I know you and lpot don't get along, but can't you at least try? Or just ignore her altogether.

[Roy]

AKA I nailed it and you don’t want to admit it. Thanks for playing.

As in you didn't provide an example of a lie-by-omission - because you haven't got one.

[lilpixieofterror]

As in you didn't provide an example of a lie-by-omission - because you haven't got one.

Reading your opponents in a worse light than intended and refusing to correct yourself is indeed a ‘lie by omission.’