Notre Dame Football News And Talk  


Come check out the news feed! DD Front Page

Go Back   Notre Dame Football News And Talk > Message Board > Open Forum

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #176  
Old 04-12-2018, 10:30 PM
Jim2Dokes Jim2Dokes is offline
Junior Member
Domer Domain Sophomore
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,051
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemoore97 View Post
But needs and wants is exactly where the argument goes with guns and cars. Someone wants something that legally they can possess and there's nothing restricting their ownership for it other than affording it. You don't have to have a DL to own any vehicle to be clear, so ownership and driving are two different things.

I usually don't argue the car point anyway. However car ownership and gun ownership is indeed very similar. There is an awesome responsibility owning and operating both since improper use of either can have lethal consequences. Driving a vehicle is essentially steering a few thousand pound bullet everywhere you go. Law enforcement isn't able to get all the bad drivers off the road and take away their driving privledges for dangerous driving habits. There's extensive regulations and laws governing both, yet individuals are the ones who ultimately make the choices and have the responsibility of heeding the laws. If they don't there are individual consequences to their actions and depending on the situation much larger ramifications to others in a variety of ways.

This ties directly into my good or evil thread. Despite my belief that people are inherently evil/sinful etc, I still favor choice and the rights of individuals to exercise free will in making decisions while accepting that responsibility and accountability for their actions no matter the consequences. Meanwhile most people who are generally more left leaning and believe people are good, not necessarily you, favor limiting the freedom of choice and responsibility for some greater societal good. Which to me is at odds with their outlook, why limit people and what they want or need if everyone is basically "good"?
Great then have someone go through 3 month course and hours and hours of supervised training/observation before someone gets a license to own a gun like driving a car. Your second point is not that simple. I do not know about the vast majority of the left. Myself, as stated before you will have to define evil. But on a philosophical POV, people are shaped by genetics and environment combined. There is no inherent. Couple Watson quotes for you. “Men are built, not born.... Give me the baby, and I'll make it climb and use its hands in constructing buildings of stone or wood.... I'll make it a thief, a gunman or a dope fiend. The possibilities of shaping in any direction are almost endless”. “There are... for us no instincts—we no longer need the term in psychology. Everything we have been in the habit of calling an 'instinct' today is a result largely of training—belonging to man's learned behavior.”

The fact one would have the concept of what good/evil is comes from something learned.

Last edited by Jim2Dokes; 04-12-2018 at 11:05 PM.

Sponsored Links
Don't like this ad? Register to make it go away!

  #177  
Old 04-13-2018, 12:15 AM
jessemoore97 jessemoore97 is offline
Member
Domer Domain Junior
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA
Posts: 3,590
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim2Dokes View Post
Great then have someone go through 3 month course and hours and hours of supervised training/observation before someone gets a license to own a gun like driving a car. Your second point is not that simple. I do not know about the vast majority of the left. Myself, as stated before you will have to define evil. But on a philosophical POV, people are shaped by genetics and environment combined. There is no inherent. Couple Watson quotes for you. “Men are built, not born.... Give me the baby, and I'll make it climb and use its hands in constructing buildings of stone or wood.... I'll make it a thief, a gunman or a dope fiend. The possibilities of shaping in any direction are almost endless”. “There are... for us no instincts—we no longer need the term in psychology. Everything we have been in the habit of calling an 'instinct' today is a result largely of training—belonging to man's learned behavior.”

The fact one would have the concept of what good/evil is comes from something learned.
The specifics of the courses etc is up for debate so to speak. I don't have a problem with them at all and wholeheartedly encourage people to go through safety courses for firearms. In order to become a licensed hunter I had to go through a hunter safety course which involved a lot of firearms discussion and practice shooting. Again my main problem is the online course offerings, with no in person instruction, nor qualification and practice time at the range. Those are unacceptable to me.

Oh lookie, common ground. 👍
  #178  
Old 04-13-2018, 12:47 AM
VCDomer's Avatar
VCDomer VCDomer is offline
Senior Member
Domer Domain All American
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Ventura, CA
Posts: 6,566
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by davislove View Post
I'm not taking a test to respond on a message board. That's just weird.

I don't think you understand my stance on gun control.



I didn't say where the fan mail is coming from. Nice try though. I just said he was getting fan mail and money sent to him. Wouldn't surprise if gun rights activists and conservatives were sending money to this killer. Also wouldn't surprise me if you think the Parkland shooting was a hoax or a plant by the democrats to try to get guns band.



We're not gonna compare some freedom of speech rally with some gun nuts going on a shooting sprees. If some conservative wants to give a speech at Berkley but 85 percent of the student body don't want them there, well that's freedom of speech as well.



BLM is not a group, it's a movement just like the me too movement for women. We all know how to prevent those black neighborhoods from burning, train the police--who carry guns everyday to learn what a gun looks like.



Muslim speak out all the time on terrorist acts. We can't stop all acts of violence but we can take action to decrease them.

You want to stop the muslim terrorist attack? then stop the di@kmoves. The Charlie hebdo's and drawing mohammed events are just fanning the flames.



But aren't these shooters terrorist? Again how are you gonna control your idiots? Ted nugent is at again saying democrats should be shot. Sounds a lot like those muslims you speak of. How come none of you are speaking up about him. Why not tell him to just shut up a pick his guitar?
You are just the kind of person who argues the minutiae to make his point or throws out so much tangential rhetoric that hardly anyone has the same OCD energy to argue with you. There is nothing in your post that makes any valid point. IMHO
__________________


Tough Times Don't Last, Tough People Do!

Last edited by VCDomer; 04-13-2018 at 12:53 AM.
  #179  
Old 04-13-2018, 12:57 AM
Jim2Dokes Jim2Dokes is offline
Junior Member
Domer Domain Sophomore
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,051
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemoore97 View Post
The specifics of the courses etc is up for debate so to speak. I don't have a problem with them at all and wholeheartedly encourage people to go through safety courses for firearms. In order to become a licensed hunter I had to go through a hunter safety course which involved a lot of firearms discussion and practice shooting. Again my main problem is the online course offerings, with no in person instruction, nor qualification and practice time at the range. Those are unacceptable to me.

Oh lookie, common ground. 👍
Bout damn time we agree on something other than fandom of ND football, which I imagine brought us both here to have these non related debates lol.
  #180  
Old 04-13-2018, 01:17 AM
Grace Flanner Grace Flanner is offline
Junior Member
Domer Domain Walk-On
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 143
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim2Dokes View Post
Yeah? And you think that’s rare? Florida has the toughest mental health law in the country which gets abused all the time, look at this thread I already pointed it out. You know what’s most common with mass shootings? Ar15. You know what’s most uncommon with violence? Mental health, most likely the victims than perpetratorss.
I'm sorry, Jim.
I was only responding to a comment that pro-gun people hadn't spoken a bad word about Nikolas Cruz. I was responding that, as a pro-gun person, I believe Nikolas Cruz is a terrible terrible person, a murderer.

What is it that you think I think is rare? I didn't say anything about anything being rare and I really don't understand your comment.
Florida does have a tough mental health law. As has also been pointed out, apparently your idea of the abuse of that law may be different than the actual use of that law, but I don't know much about it. You have referenced that Florida law a few times in this thread, so you must have some meaningful knowledge about it.
I also wasn't making any type of point about mental health. None whatsoever. I was merely commenting that in this one particular case, this one particular murderer has mental health issues. You took that to some other destination. I'll just believe you when you say that it is uncommon that perpetrators of violence have mental health issues, that the victims are more likely to have mental health issues.

AR 15's are certainly commonly used in mass shootings.
(Incidentally an AR15 was also used to stop the Sutherland Springs shooting in Texas in November (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...108-story.html)).
From your comment it seems as though you suggesting that banning AR-15's will stop mass shootings in the future. Is that your stance, that banning AR-15's will stop mass murders in the future? This is really a yes or no question. As in: Yes, if we ban AR-15's there won't be mass shootings in the future, or No, I'm not saying mass shootings will stop but at least banning AR-15's is a step in the right direction.
But if your answer to that yes/no question is 'no', then what else do you really think should be done?
  #181  
Old 04-13-2018, 02:30 AM
Jim2Dokes Jim2Dokes is offline
Junior Member
Domer Domain Sophomore
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,051
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grace Flanner View Post
I'm sorry, Jim.
I was only responding to a comment that pro-gun people hadn't spoken a bad word about Nikolas Cruz. I was responding that, as a pro-gun person, I believe Nikolas Cruz is a terrible terrible person, a murderer.

What is it that you think I think is rare? I didn't say anything about anything being rare and I really don't understand your comment.
Florida does have a tough mental health law. As has also been pointed out, apparently your idea of the abuse of that law may be different than the actual use of that law, but I don't know much about it. You have referenced that Florida law a few times in this thread, so you must have some meaningful knowledge about it.
I also wasn't making any type of point about mental health. None whatsoever. I was merely commenting that in this one particular case, this one particular murderer has mental health issues. You took that to some other destination. I'll just believe you when you say that it is uncommon that perpetrators of violence have mental health issues, that the victims are more likely to have mental health issues.

AR 15's are certainly commonly used in mass shootings.
(Incidentally an AR15 was also used to stop the Sutherland Springs shooting in Texas in November (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...108-story.html)).
From your comment it seems as though you suggesting that banning AR-15's will stop mass shootings in the future. Is that your stance, that banning AR-15's will stop mass murders in the future? This is really a yes or no question. As in: Yes, if we ban AR-15's there won't be mass shootings in the future, or No, I'm not saying mass shootings will stop but at least banning AR-15's is a step in the right direction.
But if your answer to that yes/no question is 'no', then what else do you really think should be done?
Gotcha, no biggie thought you were making a different point. I do think them and guns like them that can cause a large death toll in a short amount of time should be banned. I understand it will not prevent mass shootings, but overall I think lives will be saved for sure.
  #182  
Old 04-13-2018, 03:50 AM
SpeedsterX's Avatar
SpeedsterX SpeedsterX is offline
Administrator
Domer Domain Legend
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In the shadow of the Golden Dome
Posts: 10,142
Default

I don't care if they ban AR 15's (actually, I do) but NO ONE is taking my AK!
__________________

"
If we were in the wild, I would attack u. Even if u weren’t in my food chain, I would go out of my way to attack u!" ~Manti Teo

Moderator

  #183  
Old 04-13-2018, 03:52 AM
SpeedsterX's Avatar
SpeedsterX SpeedsterX is offline
Administrator
Domer Domain Legend
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In the shadow of the Golden Dome
Posts: 10,142
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim2Dokes View Post
Bout damn time we agree on something other than fandom of ND football, which I imagine brought us both here to have these non related debates lol.
I know I'm late to the party but I whole heartedly agree with this!
__________________

"
If we were in the wild, I would attack u. Even if u weren’t in my food chain, I would go out of my way to attack u!" ~Manti Teo

Moderator

  #184  
Old 04-13-2018, 02:56 PM
coltssb coltssb is offline
Member
Domer Domain Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 4,031
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim2Dokes View Post
Gotcha, no biggie thought you were making a different point. I do think them and guns like them that can cause a large death toll in a short amount of time should be banned. I understand it will not prevent mass shootings, but overall I think lives will be saved for sure.
I think you nailed it here. Banning the AR will not prevent mass shootings. But it may start the snowball of eliminating other guns. Which is the main concern for gun owners I’m sure.

Guns may not be banned in our lifetime, but I feel strongly that they will be banned in another hundred years or more.
  #185  
Old 04-13-2018, 06:25 PM
EddieAngel's Avatar
EddieAngel EddieAngel is offline
Member
Domer Domain Junior
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 3,722
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpeedsterX View Post
I don't care if they ban AR 15's (actually, I do) but NO ONE is taking my AK!
I am not sure how many people here have ever held an AR-15 or an M16, but I will say they serve a purpose in a certain scenario. It has zero concealability and is not something you can sneak up on someone with. It has a reasonably high capacity magazine and good range as well as a 3 round burst, so that is something. Truth be told, though, while these "mass shootings" shine the spotlight on assault style weapons it is really a red herring, the large majority of gun violence, I am willing to wager, is small arms. I would be willing to wager most criminal gun violence, statistically speaking, is from 9mm, .22, and .38 handguns.

Ban assault weapons seems to be the rallying cry, but for most anti-gun lobbyists it is really just an entry point. Ban assault rifles and most people are going to look at the statistics and see that the ban hasn't even moved the needle on gun violence, what then?

Silliness. I like the AK for the 7.62 round but for pure durability and usability I like the AR/M16.
__________________
"Little things used to mean so much to Shelly- I used to think they were kind of trivial. Believe me, nothing is trivial." --Eric Draven, The Crow
  #186  
Old 04-14-2018, 05:26 AM
jimbo's Avatar
jimbo jimbo is offline
Junior Member
Domer Domain Walk-On
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Thailand & Cambodia
Posts: 347
Default

Having worked and lived in numerous countries overseas, a question I have been asked more than a few times is "What is with the American obsession with guns?" I don't really have a good answer for that. More recently, another question is "Why we don't do something about these mass shootings that seem to be occurring more and more often?"

I'm not looking for answers to these questions, these are the viewpoints of folks that generally have a high opinion of the US, but shake their collective heads over our 'gun situation'.
__________________
Jimbo

Always remember that you are absolutely unique. Just like everyone else.
  #187  
Old 04-14-2018, 05:40 AM
Jim2Dokes Jim2Dokes is offline
Junior Member
Domer Domain Sophomore
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,051
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbo View Post
Having worked and lived in numerous countries overseas, a question I have been asked more than a few times is "What is with the American obsession with guns?" I don't really have a good answer for that. More recently, another question is "Why we don't do something about these mass shootings that seem to be occurring more and more often?"

I'm not looking for answers to these questions, these are the viewpoints of folks that generally have a high opinion of the US, but shake their collective heads over our 'gun situation'.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...cs-maps-charts

Answers
  #188  
Old 04-14-2018, 11:49 AM
davislove's Avatar
davislove davislove is offline
Senior Member
Domer Domain All American
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,234
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemoore97 View Post
The parallels are there. I'd rather not see any types of attacks, but that's not reality madmen exit whether they kill one or a hundred people. Focusing on the criminality rather than the instrument is my approach.
As you said, madmen exist. It's much easier and realistic to focus on the instrument then to try and eliminate all bad people. We can cross that mass stabber bridge when we get to it. right now we are at the mass shooting bridge.



Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemoore97 View Post
How do I or anyone else control our idiots? I teach and practice, as an example, responsible gun ownership and safety with my family and people I hunt and shoot with. I don't like people getting CCW by taking online courses without the benefit of classroom and range time with instructors to help to further drive home the values of safety and being responsible.
By taking a stand. These idiots go on a rampage and your first response is the second amendment. People like myself suggest ways to curb the problem but you guys shoot them down and offer nothing. You don't want new laws even though the current ones don't work. If you're a law abiding gun owner, why would you care about stiffer laws? If they increased the fines for speeding it wouldn't bother me one bit because i don't speed.

"Regulation" is the second worst word in the english language to you guys just behind "liberal" so you don't want that either. So your inaction and unwillingness to come to the table is an endorsement for these shooters.

it's like solve your own problem before someone else has to step in and do it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemoore97 View Post
So the kid has groupies. That's hardly a new phenomena, notorious people have gotten support from various nutters forever. I'm not going to get my feathers in a bunch over it, do I think it's ridiculous, yes absolutely but what should be done?
But his "groupies" are people that share your views. That alone would make me stop and wonder if I'm on the right team. This isn't about notorious people it's about rampaging lunatics killing innocent people and gun supporters like yourself feeling the need to send them money. It's not just a one time thing, all of these killers get crowd funding sites started for them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemoore97 View Post
Last I checked he hasn't been convicted, yet.
Because if they sent him money after he was convicted then that would sick. Prior to his trial is alright. Gotcha.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemoore97 View Post
And there's nothing preventing a person from getting support and legal funds for his defense.
It's not but I wouldn't want to be a part a group of people that support terrorist. You can't tell me you'd have the same feelings if this shooters name was Abdul Rahim and the Muslim community was sending him money.

To me it seems like we should all be able to agree that when people are being shot at schools, concerts, churches and theaters, that something should be done. When more rigid laws and regulations are handed down it will be because people like you--the good ones were too afraid to stand up to people who endorse murder, won't to do anything to help eliminate murders, or condemn those that support the murderers.

It's a cycle that needs to be stopped and you guys, quite frankly are in the way.
__________________
A couple news stories don't represent a whole population of people.

FaithInIrishForever--March 21, 2017
  #189  
Old 04-14-2018, 12:02 PM
davislove's Avatar
davislove davislove is offline
Senior Member
Domer Domain All American
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,234
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ckp160 View Post
Davislove,
I started to answer your response, but decided it’s obvious you and I do not agree, so it’s a waste of both our times. Instead I’m going to renew my NRA membership and enjoy the 2nd Amendment while I still can.
This post says a lot more then what your other post said combined. You gun folks views are often dictated by fear and the NRA preys upon it.

Anyhow, enjoy your nra cap, bumper sticker and mailbox full of junkmail.
__________________
A couple news stories don't represent a whole population of people.

FaithInIrishForever--March 21, 2017
  #190  
Old 04-14-2018, 12:11 PM
davislove's Avatar
davislove davislove is offline
Senior Member
Domer Domain All American
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,234
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grace Flanner View Post
I am pro gun, and I am pro gun control laws. Sensible laws, like the ones that already exist but are not enforced.
The law says you must stop at a stop sign. A cop can't always be around to enforce that law. If people stopped stopping at stop signs and folks were being injured and killed, would you say something else needs to be done or do you just chalk it up to laws already exist so whatevs?
__________________
A couple news stories don't represent a whole population of people.

FaithInIrishForever--March 21, 2017
  #191  
Old 04-14-2018, 12:18 PM
davislove's Avatar
davislove davislove is offline
Senior Member
Domer Domain All American
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,234
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemoore97 View Post
Is being able to defend yourself from oppression and violence in their extreme forms somehow a immoral and bad value?
That sounds a lot like my son when I took away his computer. Saying he needs it for school but what it's really used for is porn.

You act like guns are only used to protect your home and family. That's not the issue.
__________________
A couple news stories don't represent a whole population of people.

FaithInIrishForever--March 21, 2017
  #192  
Old 04-14-2018, 12:29 PM
davislove's Avatar
davislove davislove is offline
Senior Member
Domer Domain All American
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,234
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jbrown_9999 View Post
Wanted to use some different examples to see the impact on this discussion. At the end of the day, there is a good deal of give and take in balancing risk to self and others, cost (both to individuals and society), and personal freedom around many areas, not just guns. There is also no one "correct" answer, given the different perspectives of 300+ million people in the US.

1) Since drunk driving causes over 10,000 deaths a year in the US, should the government ban all alcohol to prevent these deaths from happening? Perhaps just the 5 most dangerous types of alcohol should be banned however that can be determined?

2) Since certain models of cars have a higher chance of causing a driver's death, should the most dangerous cars on the list be banned given their danger to society? If so, who gets to decide on which models? Top 5? Top 10?

3) Statistically speaking, motorcycles are more dangerous than guns. 300 million guns in the US to 38,000 gun deaths, 8 million motorcycles to 4,000 motorcycle deaths. Should motorcycles be banned?

4) Since speed driven is a key factor in whether or not a death occurs, should all cars be limited by governors to 45 miles an hour to prevent deaths?

5) Sixteen people die everyday due to pedestrians being hit by cars. Should city speed limits be lowered to 20 mph given the impact on vehicle speed to pedestrian deaths? Is banning AR 15 rifles basically the same as making everyone drive 20 pmh to the grocery store since the goal of both actions would be to save lives of innocent people?

6) Assuming that it is possible to create a car that is almost risk free, but it would cost $200K per car. Should the government mandate that all new cars must meet that high level of safety?

7) Tobacco. Should it even be legal?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-...tes-of-deaths/

https://gizmodo.com/how-likely-you-a...-on-1778993900
You didn't do your case any favors with your argument.

we have drinking and driving laws and Cars that are more dangerous also have higher insurance premiums.

I would love for guns to be treated like cars meaning:

You need a title and tag for each gun

renewals

Gun training

written test and field test

health standards

liability insurance for each gun
__________________
A couple news stories don't represent a whole population of people.

FaithInIrishForever--March 21, 2017
  #193  
Old 04-14-2018, 02:38 PM
jessemoore97 jessemoore97 is offline
Member
Domer Domain Junior
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA
Posts: 3,590
Default

[quote=davislove;705097]As you said, madmen exist. It's much easier and realistic to focus on the instrument then to try and eliminate all bad people. We can cross that mass stabber bridge when we get to it. right now we are at the mass shooting bridge.

I beg to differ. You'd focus efforts on getting rid of the evil gun but take your eyes off the evil doer? We have had mass stabbers before, mass shooters using other firearms besides rifles, mass attacks using vehicles, etc.


By taking a stand. These idiots go on a rampage and your first response is the second amendment. People like myself suggest ways to curb the problem but you guys shoot them down and offer nothing. You don't want new laws even though the current ones don't work. If you're a law abiding gun owner, why would you care about stiffer laws? If they increased the fines for speeding it wouldn't bother me one bit because i don't speed.

Myself and others have offered all sorts of solutions, but they are the ones anti gun people don't like. I just did a whole back and forth with Jim about classes etc in which common ground was found with...Jim(no offense Jim). Yes arguing the second amendment is a big deal, because it allows for that argument and was purposefully put there for these conversations. I don't speed either, but I would have problems for a number of reasons for fines etc going way up but that's another discussion altogether.

"Regulation" is the second worst word in the english language to you guys just behind "liberal" so you don't want that either. So your inaction and unwillingness to come to the table is an endorsement for these shooters.

It's not an endorsement whatsoever. The regulations have been there, and haven't always been effective. The assault weapons ban from the nineties as one example, showed little to no actual effect on overall gun violence during the period it was in effect. Isn't one of the purposes of laws and regulations the ability to change behaviors and circumstances to the desired outcome? If they aren't doing that then what's the point of the law?

it's like solve your own problem before someone else has to step in and do it.

It's not my problem just because I own a gun. That argument makes no sense. I don't hold everyone at fault because one person did something bad with one.



But his "groupies" are people that share your views. That alone would make me stop and wonder if I'm on the right team. This isn't about notorious people it's about rampaging lunatics killing innocent people and gun supporters like yourself feeling the need to send them money. It's not just a one time thing, all of these killers get crowd funding sites started for them.

How do you know they share my views, let alone other gun owners? That's such a stretch of the imagination. It's exactly about notorious people who draw fame/infamy and the loonies who attach themselves to them. There is an extensive amount of history one could peruse about this phenomena.

Because if they sent him money after he was convicted then that would sick. Prior to his trial is alright. Gotcha.

No it's called due process and he has the right to it. It's no different than individuals who have supported radicals in the past who committed heinous crimes for a cause. A quick search would find people still support individuals and groups who have been convicted of crimes in the past or are still the run. Various violent black militants or Manson family followers to name only two examples off the top of my head.

It's not but I wouldn't want to be a part a group of people that support terrorist. You can't tell me you'd have the same feelings if this shooters name was Abdul Rahim and the Muslim community was sending him money.

That already happens now.


To me it seems like we should all be able to agree that when people are being shot at schools, concerts, churches and theaters, that something should be done. When more rigid laws and regulations are handed down it will be because people like you--the good ones were too afraid to stand up to people who endorse murder, won't to do anything to help eliminate murders, or condemn those that support the murderers.

Really? As a police officer, I do nothing to stop people who murder or try and prevent those murders? This is one of those areas I'm going to have to throw the brown flag. In LE we don't go after the tools, we arrest the bad people.

It's a cycle that needs to be stopped and you guys, quite frankly are in the way.
  #194  
Old 04-14-2018, 03:39 PM
ckp160 ckp160 is offline
Junior Member
Domer Domain Freshman
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Washington State
Posts: 669
Default

http://assaultweapontruth.com/

To help educate some of the people in this post. Completely disregard Jerry Mirculek shooting his revolver. No normal human shoots that fast. That guy is on another level.

https://www.adn.com/features/alaska-...-are-the-rest/

This is an article that was very alarming. Particularly with part where the police said when the guns hit the black market they were pretty much gone.

http://fbinicsystem.com/fbi-nics-background-check-faqs

Everything you wanted to know about the NICS, and probably a bunch of stuff you didn't want to know.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...flag-laws.html

Jim, you asked me for something that would help stop kids from getting killed. I actually agree 100% with this idea right here. I do have some concerns, but I think this is a GREAT starting point. If you recall, the Parkland shooter was reported to the FBI, the cops knew, yet nothing was done. Had a red flag law been in place, the police could have seized the guns and perhaps prevented a shooting. There is no way to completely prevent mass shootings. Ask France and some of the other European countries about that.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34385059

Here's something interesting. Is it a hard and fast way that will suddenly and drastically stop shootings? No. It might be a part of the solution, though. I read an article a while back about a group that wants to limit the publicizing of a shooter. For the life of me I can't find it.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/...useronline.pdf

And here you go. This is Harvard. The Ivy league school. A liberal Ivy league school.

Last edited by ckp160; 04-14-2018 at 04:02 PM.
  #195  
Old 04-14-2018, 04:01 PM
ckp160 ckp160 is offline
Junior Member
Domer Domain Freshman
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Washington State
Posts: 669
Default

Quote:
Gun training

written test and field test
Would you exempt veterans from this? They have government training on the firearms handling.

As a gun owner I don't, personally, have a huge issue with some of the things you're asking. However, when you start talking about putting licensing and such, you have to figure out a way to prevent states like California and Illinois from pricing the common person from being able to afford the licensing. What I mean is, it's pretty well known that California is pretty anti gun. It is not unforeseeable that the lawmakers there could make it extremely expensive to license a firearm in order to discourage it. The other issue I can see is putting a registration of a constitutional right. I'm sure this could be lawyered up, though, so it's not a huge stumbling block for what you're proposing. I guess one way to look at what you're saying is that it might be a good litmus test for both sides of the gun control argument. Is it really about lowering gun violence and keeping guns out of the untrained and mentally ill, or is it about gun grabbing?

Last edited by ckp160; 04-14-2018 at 04:03 PM.
  #196  
Old 04-14-2018, 04:06 PM
Kelly Gruene Kelly Gruene is offline
Junior Member
Domer Domain Sophomore
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Dallas/Fort Worth
Posts: 1,572
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by davislove View Post
You didn't do your case any favors with your argument.

we have drinking and driving laws and Cars that are more dangerous also have higher insurance premiums.

I would love for guns to be treated like cars meaning:

You need a title and tag for each gun

renewals

Gun training

written test and field test

health standards

liability insurance for each gun
I'm not a gun owner. The types of things you suggest here in general seem pretty reasonable. I'll bet most gun owners (but obviously I can't speak for them) would agree, maybe with some modifications, with many of these suggestions.
Now, health standards, well, that's trickier. What is, and what is not, considered a "mental health disorder" is constantly evolving (https://www.nhs.uk/news/mental-healt...h-guide-dsm-5/). Evolution may be a good thing, but what is not today considered a mental health disorder might be in 5 years. If someone can get a gun today but 5 years from now is placed on a list because something new has changed in this realm, that gun is already out there and I think unlikely to be turned back in voluntarily.
Liability insurance is intriguing. It seems like the insurance industry would be all over that. Most respectable gun owners who buy their guns legally may be a bit mad about it, but it's an interesting idea. I would bet that if premiums were based strictly on which guns were most commonly used in violent crimes, the premiums on AR 15's would be lower than the premiums on hand guns. The people who by the guns legally would be more responsible about subsequent sales because they would then be 'on the hook' for insurance after the sale(?). I like the idea in some ways but clearly some work would need to be done on it.
  #197  
Old 04-14-2018, 06:03 PM
ckp160 ckp160 is offline
Junior Member
Domer Domain Freshman
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Washington State
Posts: 669
Default

Quote:
The people who by the guns legally would be more responsible about subsequent sales because they would then be 'on the hook' for insurance after the sale(?). I like the idea in some ways but clearly some work would need to be done on it.
Several states, including Washington, have “universal background” checks. Every transfer must through an FFL, and thus a NICS check. The basics of it is, you want to sell a gun to somebody who wants to buy the gun. You go to an FFL (federal firearms license) and you fill out some paperwork that transfers the gun to the dealer, who then is selling it to the other party. A 4473 (form for gun sales) gets filled out and a NICS check is initiated. Proceed, hold, or denied comes back and the sale either happens or does not. A fee is charged by the dealer for the trouble of the paperwork and such. I believe Colorado (I’d have to check) limits how much a dealer can charge for the check, Washington does not. 25-50 seems to be going rate. Keep in mind that some states exempt immediate family members from having to do a transfer on firearms. IE parent to child.

Insurance is tricky. There would need to be a cap on how much can be charged at a reasonable rate. Otherwise only the wealthy can afford guns and that is discriminatory to low income people. They have a right to self defense as much as the wealthy. There are already some insurances available. More for legal defense if a gun is used in self defense capacity.

Again, these things should be discussed. However, what guarantees are in place for the gun owners that more and more laws won’t be added to the books? If something isn’t effective, shouldn’t it be removed and revisited as opposed to yet another “toothless” law added? People on the gun control side can make fun of this view as much as they want, but it’s a reality. Both sides need to acknowledge that criminals do NOT follow laws, so any obstacle to owning a gun only harms the law abiding.
  #198  
Old 04-14-2018, 06:09 PM
ckp160 ckp160 is offline
Junior Member
Domer Domain Freshman
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Washington State
Posts: 669
Default

Forgot to mention that health care is somewhat addressed already on a 4473. There is a question about being involuntarily committed to a mental health facility. I don’t know if this prohibits purchasing a gun, or how it works. You start getting into medical privacy really quick with any health issue. Particularly with things like PTSD, social anxiety and things of that nature. Really the question is: is this person a danger to others? I imagine with a lot of mental problems the answer would be no. However, which ones would be? That’s where the idea should start I’d say.
  #199  
Old 04-14-2018, 08:06 PM
jbrown_9999 jbrown_9999 is offline
Junior Member
Domer Domain Sophomore
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,844
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by davislove View Post
You didn't do your case any favors with your argument.

we have drinking and driving laws and Cars that are more dangerous also have higher insurance premiums.

I would love for guns to be treated like cars meaning:

You need a title and tag for each gun

renewals

Gun training

written test and field test

health standards

liability insurance for each gun
One of my points is that there is a lot of knee-jerk reaction to certain things such as a school shooting that generate a lot of "outrage" when the reality is that everyday more people die from other things that deserve way more attention from society but are not as compelling of a story.

Less people (including children) would die each year from lowering urban speed limits to 20 mph than from banning assault rifles. Why is there no national outrage at dangerous speed limits being in place?

I think the reason is that an accident due to a higher speed limit is not a ratings friendly story. Accidents typically happen one at a time so you do not get the same news/attention impact as a school shooting.

Relatively few people are killed by any type of rifle every year. Yet, there is a huge outcry and amount of energy being expended from folks who want to ban one type of rifle. Why? Should not the focus be on things that statistically more dangerous?

I hate to sound insensitive but only 138 people have been killed in school shootings since 2014 (less than 50 a year). Yes, that is 138 too many but in comparison, 63 kids died from the flu in the last 6 months. About 75-85% of kids who die from flu do not get a flu shot. Where is the outrage, the demonstrations, the politicians grabbing headlines?

Please note that I do not own a gun and will never own a gun.
  #200  
Old 04-14-2018, 09:31 PM
Jim2Dokes Jim2Dokes is offline
Junior Member
Domer Domain Sophomore
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,051
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jbrown_9999 View Post
One of my points is that there is a lot of knee-jerk reaction to certain things such as a school shooting that generate a lot of "outrage" when the reality is that everyday more people die from other things that deserve way more attention from society but are not as compelling of a story.

Less people (including children) would die each year from lowering urban speed limits to 20 mph than from banning assault rifles. Why is there no national outrage at dangerous speed limits being in place?

I think the reason is that an accident due to a higher speed limit is not a ratings friendly story. Accidents typically happen one at a time so you do not get the same news/attention impact as a school shooting.

Relatively few people are killed by any type of rifle every year. Yet, there is a huge outcry and amount of energy being expended from folks who want to ban one type of rifle. Why? Should not the focus be on things that statistically more dangerous?

I hate to sound insensitive but only 138 people have been killed in school shootings since 2014 (less than 50 a year). Yes, that is 138 too many but in comparison, 63 kids died from the flu in the last 6 months. About 75-85% of kids who die from flu do not get a flu shot. Where is the outrage, the demonstrations, the politicians grabbing headlines?

Please note that I do not own a gun and will never own a gun.
Again, you are mentioning thing like accidents and a sickness that actually they do try to control. Schools were shut down and national/local governments did a number of things to curb deaths this flu season. But, the big diff is that people take a tool and kill people. Again, I bring up the point of the Tylenol poisoning, since a few people, very small number will killed, the govt enacted along with the major companies to standardize how the bottles were made to be tamper evident. I didn’t hear any stories about people giving others the flu.
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump

Also visit IrishEnvy, our Notre Dame Football partner site

All times are GMT. The time now is 12:40 AM.

Last Updated: July 22, 2019

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.