| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/28/2014 08:38:27 PM · #126 |
Originally posted by Stagolee:
I have a set of keys for my house......wouldn't have a clue where they are! True story :) |
Same... |
|
|
|
01/28/2014 08:44:12 PM · #127 |
Originally posted by Cory:
I don't give a shit WHERE I'm living, I lock the doors and don't keep keys in my vehicle.
However, just as a point of clarification, I do not keep a gun handy for defense... That's what my 22 oz framing hammer is for. :D |
I have one of those, as well as a chainsaw. :O)
Oh I forgot, I also have a hockey stick and a lacrosse stick. :O)
Ray
Message edited by author 2014-01-28 20:52:07. |
|
|
|
01/28/2014 08:49:01 PM · #128 |
Originally posted by chazoe:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
I haven't been paying attention to this thread but I would like to add one thing
Just remember....Gun Free Zone = Criminal safe zone |
You should move next door to me Cowboy, I promise you will be safe.
Unfortunately though, you will have to register all your handguns, obtain a convey permit and will not be allowed to possess any automatic weapons. You will be ok with hunting rifles, but there are certain limitations on those also.
Truth be told my friend, I feel much safer here than I would living were you are... and I don't even lock the door to the house. :O)
Ray |
I live in a town in Western Colorado with more houses with guns in them than without and I never lock my door. I leave my keys in my truck and have even left my garage door open all day while at work.
I feel safer here than I would feel living where you live. Prove my feelings wrong. |
I am currently enjoying the sunny weather in Australia and really don`t feel much like doing a whole lot of research in the matter, but I did find this little tidbit of information: Injury by firearms
I am happy that you feel safe. I also feel safe, but probably for different reasons. In passing, I doubt I could prove your feelings wrong since in most cases "feelings" are not normally based on empirical evidence but rather one's perception of reality.
Ray
|
|
|
|
01/29/2014 12:35:45 AM · #129 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
...In passing, I doubt I could prove your feelings wrong since in most cases "feelings" are not normally based on empirical evidence but rather one's perception of reality.
Ray |
If that's the case I think Rant is one of the most feeling places I've ever seen! |
|
|
|
01/29/2014 12:44:58 AM · #130 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
...In passing, I doubt I could prove your feelings wrong since in most cases "feelings" are not normally based on empirical evidence but rather one's perception of reality.
Ray |
If that's the case I think Rant is one of the most feeling places I've ever seen! |
...and I would wholeheartedly agree with this premise. I also have faith that given time, those who doubt will see the light and find their way. :O)
Ray
Message edited by author 2014-01-30 04:31:59. |
|
|
|
02/01/2014 02:09:20 PM · #131 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If we could then somehow also tie in criminalized marijuana, legalized abortion, and the increasing frequency of same-sex marriage, we'd have us a thread! :) |
OK, you've just made me have to go photograph a sign ... watch this space. :-) |
 I think these folks have it covered ... |
|
|
|
02/17/2014 10:43:09 AM · #132 |
More/less ammo for your respective arguments: Study links easier gun access to increased homicide rates in Missouri.
"This study is compelling confirmation that weaknesses in firearm laws lead to deaths from gun violence," said Prof Webster. |
|
|
|
06/05/2014 12:29:20 AM · #133 |
| Hey Ray... You guys have one now too apparently. |
|
|
|
06/05/2014 05:15:59 PM · #134 |
If you are alluding to a cop killer, he isn't the first one.
Ray |
|
|
|
06/05/2014 05:31:21 PM · #135 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
If you are alluding to a cop killer, he isn't the first one.
Ray |
Obviously I'm poking you in the eye just a little bit here...
What good did your gun restrictions do? Did it actually impact this situation in any meaningful way? What if this nutter had gone for a school or a mall, or a hockey game? How many would he have killed?
Message edited by author 2014-06-05 17:32:15. |
|
|
|
06/05/2014 05:54:25 PM · #136 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
If you are alluding to a cop killer, he isn't the first one.
Ray |
Obviously I'm poking you in the eye just a little bit here...
What good did your gun restrictions do? |
Your question akes no sense unless you can find any "gun control advocate" who has claimed that their proposals would prevent 100% of homicides.
The answer in whether the restrictions "work" lies in the rate of "gun deaths per capita" and not in whether someone/some people get killed.
"Poking people in the eye" (even figuratively) and citing pointless statistics does not add credibility to your position ... |
|
|
|
06/05/2014 06:25:53 PM · #137 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
If you are alluding to a cop killer, he isn't the first one.
Ray |
Obviously I'm poking you in the eye just a little bit here...
What good did your gun restrictions do? Did it actually impact this situation in any meaningful way? What if this nutter had gone for a school or a mall, or a hockey game? How many would he have killed? |
Do take the time to look at the numbers of similar incidents in just about anywhere in the world, then compare them to the statistics in the USA and let me know what you find out.
Truth be told there are other countries where firearms are readily available but the numbers of similar incidents are far greater in the USA... makes one wonder why.
Chances are that the brandishing of a firearm in the USA would not give rise to the same level of scrutiny as in would here since in some environments it is a rather common occurrence. With regards to gun restrictions, I take solace in the fact that there do exist restrictions in the types of magazines one can legally have.
I did not know any of those poor young men that lost their lives in this tragedy, but a few of us old retired members listened to the news and remembered them and those unfortunate souls who had suffered the same fate in the past.
Ray |
|
|
|
06/05/2014 06:30:26 PM · #138 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
If you are alluding to a cop killer, he isn't the first one.
Ray |
Obviously I'm poking you in the eye just a little bit here...
What good did your gun restrictions do? |
Your question akes no sense unless you can find any "gun control advocate" who has claimed that their proposals would prevent 100% of homicides.
The answer in whether the restrictions "work" lies in the rate of "gun deaths per capita" and not in whether someone/some people get killed.
"Poking people in the eye" (even figuratively) and citing pointless statistics does not add credibility to your position ... |
Say what you will, but I see these events as direct proof that gun restrictions really don't make a lick of difference to those who want to kill others.
That psycho over in your neck of the woods (Eliott something or other) bought his guns legally too, in what is already one of the most restrictive states in terms of gun control measures.
Nah, I just don't buy it, and I absolutely do see these events as supporting my position.
--
In any event, the 'eye poking' is intended in a good natured way (as much as any eye-poking can be).. I just don't quite understand how you wouldn't see these two events in particular as supporting the idea that gun restrictions are more likely to work on those who have no 'important' purpose for their weapons, while doing little to really stop those who are out to commit atrocities. |
|
|
|
06/05/2014 06:37:17 PM · #139 |
Let me see if I can simplify things for you a tad  Cory
What do you think your chances would be of stealing a car from an Amish person in Pennsylvania.
Have to run now, I need to tend to a "Pokey" eye... see you later. :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
06/05/2014 06:39:35 PM · #140 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Do take the time to look at the numbers of similar incidents in just about anywhere in the world, then compare them to the statistics in the USA and let me know what you find out.
Truth be told there are other countries where firearms are readily available but the numbers of similar incidents are far greater in the USA... makes one wonder why.
Chances are that the brandishing of a firearm in the USA would not give rise to the same level of scrutiny as in would here since in some environments it is a rather common occurrence. With regards to gun restrictions, I take solace in the fact that there do exist restrictions in the types of magazines one can legally have.
I did not know any of those poor young men that lost their lives in this tragedy, but a few of us old retired members listened to the news and remembered them and those unfortunate souls who had suffered the same fate in the past.
Ray |
Brandishing a firearm here is a common occurrence? Really? I live in one of the most gun friendly states in the union, and I assure you that it's anything but common. In fact, if you 'brandish' the firearm in a menacing way towards anyone, you will be arrested and charged with assault with a deadly weapon. Open carry is seen sometimes, still not often, and that's not what I would refer to as 'brandishing'.
We absolutely do have a higher occurrence. That much we agree on. And the reason why? My honest best guess is a couple of pockets of culture that tend to produce high rates of violence. Gangs and the illicit markets are probably the biggest contributor, followed by inner-city violence.
Indeed, it seems as though most of the gun crime occurs in a very small percentage of the geographical area of this country, and I'd even posit a hypothesis that the spatial areas with the highest rates of gun crime are actually some of the lowest per capita in gun ownership, or at the very least, not among the highest.
But we never really use those as the rallying points for gun control hue and cry - those are the 'everyday' murders, the ones that never get even a second of time on the news, and rarely even much of a mention in the local paper. No, we almost always see the outcry when there are shootings by someone that's out to just inflict random damage, and the reality is that there's probably very little we can do to stop those incidents.
Message edited by author 2014-06-05 18:45:04. |
|
|
|
06/05/2014 06:41:58 PM · #141 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Let me see if I can simplify things for you a tad Cory
What do you think your chances would be of stealing a car from an Amish person in Pennsylvania.
Have to run now, I need to tend to a "Pokey" eye... see you later. :O)
Ray |
No offense, but that's a very silly argument, since it relies on the absolutely ridiculous premise that even fully outlawing firearms would remove them from circulation here. A hundred years later and there'd still be firearms in the hands of those who should be the (ironically) last people allowed to own them. |
|
|
|
06/05/2014 07:13:16 PM · #142 |
Originally posted by Cory:
I see these events as direct proof that gun restrictions really don't make a lick of difference to those who want to kill others. |
Therefore, you must also see a death while wearing a seatbelt as "direct proof" that laws requiring seat belt use are pointless, a fatality on a football field as undeniable fact that helmets and pads serve no purpose, a single case of polio as conclusive evidence that the vaccine has no merit, a mine accident as reason to eliminate all mining regulations, and a burned out home as motivation to abolish building codes and fire departments. Because your premise is the exact same "exception that proves the rule" fallacy. Meanwhile, gee... ANOTHER school shooting. It's really quite simple: sensible licensing regulations and safety standards = fewer deaths. It's undeniably true of all of the above, yet people still drive cars. Whoop de do.
Message edited by author 2014-06-05 19:43:28. |
|
|
|
06/05/2014 08:45:55 PM · #143 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Cory:
I see these events as direct proof that gun restrictions really don't make a lick of difference to those who want to kill others. |
Therefore, you must also see a death while wearing a seatbelt as "direct proof" that laws requiring seat belt use are pointless, a fatality on a football field as undeniable fact that helmets and pads serve no purpose, a single case of polio as conclusive evidence that the vaccine has no merit, a mine accident as reason to eliminate all mining regulations, and a burned out home as motivation to abolish building codes and fire departments. Because your premise is the exact same "exception that proves the rule" fallacy. Meanwhile, gee... ANOTHER school shooting. It's really quite simple: sensible licensing regulations and safety standards = fewer deaths. It's undeniably true of all of the above, yet people still drive cars. Whoop de do. |
The problem with your reasoning here is that you're comparing random unfortunate events to willful human creation of unfortunate events. There is a crucial difference, random events don't tend to take actions to circumvent precautions, thereby making any precautions taken much more effective. Surely you understand that? |
|
|
|
06/05/2014 09:27:34 PM · #144 |
Originally posted by Cory:
The problem with your reasoning here is that you're comparing random unfortunate events to willful human creation of unfortunate events. There is a crucial difference, random events don't tend to take actions to circumvent precautions, thereby making any precautions taken much more effective. Surely you understand that? |
Mmm, yeah... nobody would EVER try to circumvent wearing a seatbelt, skimp on sports safety equipment, refuse to vaccinate children, dodge mining regulations or bypass building codes. That's why it's a such a head scratcher that homicide and suicide rates have dropped in countries that enacted reasonable gun control measures.
Look, I don't have to convince you. Gun control is just as inevitable as marriage equality. In both cases, a vocal group is pushing a boulder of rationalization uphill against the weight of evidence. The harder they push, the faster it will fall (see Prop 8 or Texas Open Carry vs. any business chain). People were just as vehement about gun rights, self defense, government tyranny, criminals getting guns or finding another way, etc. in Australia when they were enacting gun control. All of that turned out to be total B.S., and some vocal opponents have since admitted that they were wrong. There will be false starts and many steps back, but gun control will most assuredly come. It's only a matter of time and needlessly wasted lives. |
|
|
|
06/05/2014 10:54:05 PM · #145 |
Look, if you're willing to give away freedoms for safety, and are willing to rationalize it to any point, where do you stop?
Seatbelts were railed against too, or rather, the laws that forced everyone to use them. Yet, it came, and some still resist the law.
Guns may follow, and you can bet there will be some who resist.
After that, then perhaps it will be the unhealthy foods, or maybe alcohol.
Eventually, we'll all live 150 years, and eat nothing but healthy food, and walk around swaddled in padding so as to avoid scraped knees.
Sounds pretty awesome huh? SMH. |
|
|
|
06/05/2014 11:45:32 PM · #146 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Look, if you're willing to give away freedoms for safety, and are willing to rationalize it to any point, where do you stop? |
You are arguing, then, that safety is not a reason to regulate anything, which is utter nonsense. Does it say anywhere in the constitution that you have a right to NOT wear seat belts? Do you have a right to drive any speed you want, ignore lanes and blow through stop signs? What freedom, exactly, are you giving away with reasonable gun control? Does the constitution say you have a right to own a sawed-off shotgun or a grenade launcher? Does it say you can own guns at age 3 or with a felony conviction? Australians still hunt and shoot targets and have guns in their homes, so your slippery slope fallacy is bogus. As I said, gun control is inevitable. Apparently it will take something even more horrible than the massacre of two dozen schoolchildren to prompt action, but there will be a tipping point eventually. |
|
|
|
06/06/2014 12:46:05 AM · #147 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Cory:
Look, if you're willing to give away freedoms for safety, and are willing to rationalize it to any point, where do you stop? |
You are arguing, then, that safety is not a reason to regulate anything, which is utter nonsense. Does it say anywhere in the constitution that you have a right to NOT wear seat belts? Do you have a right to drive any speed you want, ignore lanes and blow through stop signs? What freedom, exactly, are you giving away with reasonable gun control? Does the constitution say you have a right to own a sawed-off shotgun or a grenade launcher? Does it say you can own guns at age 3 or with a felony conviction? Australians still hunt and shoot targets and have guns in their homes, so your slippery slope fallacy is bogus. As I said, gun control is inevitable. Apparently it will take something even more horrible than the massacre of two dozen schoolchildren to prompt action, but there will be a tipping point eventually. |
In fact, no - the constitution never mentioned seat belts... Probably because they hadn't been invented yet, and because they're really such insignificant devices I doubt they would have merited a mention even had they existed at the time. Not so with guns, they're mentioned, and I think it's reasonable to conclude that it was/is for some significant reason.
I don't quite know what to make of your rambling argument around shotguns and grenade launchers not being mentioned specifically in the constitution, of course they weren't - neither were slingshots or muskets, the firearms that were state of the art at the time were the intended meaning, and I see no reason to assume they only meant for it to cover the firearms of the period.
So, in order to actually examine this in a more meaningful and productive way, let's play a gedankenexperiment game....
Three scenarios - all very real, I want you to propose a gun restriction that would have successfully prevented the tragedy.
1. Adam Lanza - CT - Takes legally owned gun belonging to his mother, and uses it to massacre school children and teachers (including his own mother)...
2. Eliott Rodger - CA - Legally purchases two handguns shortly prior to using them and a vehicle to go on a rampage directed at anyone who's ever gotten laid.
3. John Lee Malvo- VA/DC - Steals gun from shop in Tacoma, Washington, joins forces with John Allen Muhammad and acts as a mobile sniper, going on a long-term killing spree in the area of Virginia and Washington D.C.
--
Again, I want a clear and rational proposal for a law that would have stopped each of these real life scenarios. Each has a very different method of procurement of the weapon, and the one rule is that you cannot ban all weapons, you must propose regulations no stricter than those in Australia.
I'm genuinely interested in the results of this gedankenexperiment - play well enough and you may yet convince me.
Message edited by author 2014-06-06 00:48:59. |
|
|
|
06/06/2014 02:19:04 AM · #148 |
Originally posted by Cory:
the constitution never mentioned seat belts... Probably because they hadn't been invented yet... I don't quite know what to make of your rambling argument around shotguns and grenade launchers not being mentioned specifically in the constitution |
The Supreme Court has specifically ruled that prohibitions against the latter do not infringe upon the 2nd amendment, so have fun with your musket if you want to play the "not invented yet" card.
Originally posted by Cory:
I want you to propose a gun restriction that would have successfully prevented the tragedy... |
Ah, so you're going with the "if we can't prevent every single act of gun violence, there's no point in trying to prevent any of them" bit that John Oliver lampooned in the link I posted earlier. Funny stuff.
1. Secure storage, restrictions on known mental illness, limits on high-capacity magazines and number of clips
2. Restrictions on known mental illness, announcing the planned killing spree on YouTube could have raised a red flag with a gun registration database
3. Smart gun technology renders a stolen gun useless, strengthen background checks and dealer enforcement (it wasn't actually stolen)
4. Tuscon– mental illness, high-capacity magazines
5. Aurora– mental patient, high capacity magazines, purchase of body armor and lots of ammo raises red flag
6. Kansas City– straw purchase loophole... etc, etc.
Oh, lookie... fatalities may have been stopped or reduced in one or all of these cases, and you'd still get to keep and bear arms. Unless you're mentally ill, of course. |
|
|
|
06/06/2014 11:31:30 AM · #149 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Cory:
the constitution never mentioned seat belts... Probably because they hadn't been invented yet... I don't quite know what to make of your rambling argument around shotguns and grenade launchers not being mentioned specifically in the constitution |
The Supreme Court has specifically ruled that prohibitions against the latter do not infringe upon the 2nd amendment, so have fun with your musket if you want to play the "not invented yet" card.
Originally posted by Cory:
I want you to propose a gun restriction that would have successfully prevented the tragedy... |
Ah, so you're going with the "if we can't prevent every single act of gun violence, there's no point in trying to prevent any of them" bit that John Oliver lampooned in the link I posted earlier. Funny stuff.
1. Secure storage, restrictions on known mental illness, limits on high-capacity magazines and number of clips
2. Restrictions on known mental illness, announcing the planned killing spree on YouTube could have raised a red flag with a gun registration database
3. Smart gun technology renders a stolen gun useless, strengthen background checks and dealer enforcement (it wasn't actually stolen)
4. Tuscon– mental illness, high-capacity magazines
5. Aurora– mental patient, high capacity magazines, purchase of body armor and lots of ammo raises red flag
6. Kansas City– straw purchase loophole... etc, etc.
Oh, lookie... fatalities may have been stopped or reduced in one or all of these cases, and you'd still get to keep and bear arms. Unless you're mentally ill, of course. |
Fail.
I asked you to propose laws that would have stopped this. You chose not to do so, I can only suppose the reason is that you know there's no way to prevent these things.
Even so, I'll address your points, just to be fair and thorough.
1. Already in place in CA. Did not stop shootings.
2. "Restrictions on mental illness" - yeah, that SOUNDS really good. Any ideas on how to implement such a fantasy?
3. At least two out of the three scenarios listed employed legally owned weapons, this wouldn't help.
4-6. Observational commentary on shootings. Won't bother with these.
Hell, I'm not even going with "If we can't prevent every single act of gun violence, there's no point in trying to prevent any of them", it's much more "If we can only prevent law abiding citizens from owning weapons, then the harm from such a law would be immense."
Let's face the facts, each one these guys would have gotten their hands on a weapon or weapons, and there isn't a law you can pass to prevent that - not even draconian measures like full bans on firearms and forced mental health evaluations can actually catch this stuff.
Risk is a part of life - trying to avoid it at any cost is certain to have a high cost and a very low return on investment.
Message edited by author 2014-06-06 11:36:43. |
|
|
|
06/06/2014 12:07:25 PM · #150 |
Already then. Thanks for taking the time to criticize the gun control measures you said I chose not to bring up.
Originally posted by Cory:
1. Already in place in CA. Did not stop shootings. |
1. That was Connecticut, not California, and several of these gunmen WERE stopped (and/or potential victims escaped) when they had to reload. The Aurora shooter used a gun and high-capacity magazine that had both been previously unavailable under the expired assault weapons ban.
2. Already in place in other countries, and simply being able to REPORT mental illness for the purpose of background checks would be a step up from the current watered-down laws
3. You discount an obvious solution on this one by dodging to unrelated situations
4-6. More obvious solutions that you won't bother with because you're too invested in paranoid fallacies to recognize that they've already been proven elsewhere.
Originally posted by Cory:
it's much more "If we can only prevent law abiding citizens from owning weapons, then the harm from such a law would be immense." ...Let's face the facts, each one these guys would have gotten their hands on a weapon or weapons |
And you're right back to the "it's a plot to take our guns away" and "bad guys will find another way" nonsense that's been debunked to death.
Message edited by author 2014-06-06 12:09:23. |
|
