Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Sign in to follow this  
randall146

USA Shootings

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Politician Spock said:

When you experience the inconvenience of going through TSA boarding security, are you being punished?

I don't give a #### about any specific details about cockpits, bombs, #######s who put their seats back, emotional support peacocks, the lack of peanuts because people with peanut allergies ruined everyone's fun, or any other pain in the ### situation that could occur on a plane. I want to know one thing, and one thing only. Is KCitons being punished by airline safety regulations? YES or NO?

Punished?

No.

Do you think that's a punishment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Punished?

No.

Do you think that's a punishment?

Then please stop with the claims that people just want to punish law abiding gun owners. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

Then please stop with the claims that people just want to punish law abiding gun owners. 

Hate to break it to you, but going through a security checkpoint is the same as a background check. Which is the one thing I am a proponent of when it comes to gun control. One prevents people that aren't supposed to fly from gaining access to the plane, the other prevents people that aren't supposed to have a gun from gaining access to firearms. 

How would you feel, if in addition to going through security checkpoints, the government forced you to buy insurance, take classes periodically, and carry a special license that allows you to fly? 

I still believe there are people that want to punish gun owners. Blood on hands. Remember that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Punished?

No.

Do you think that's a punishment?

By the way, you never answered my question.

I'm noticing this is happening a lot. I answer, but am not offered the same courtesy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Hate to break it to you, but going through a security checkpoint is the same as a background check. Which is the one thing I am a proponent of when it comes to gun control. One prevents people that aren't supposed to fly from gaining access to the plane, the other prevents people that aren't supposed to have a gun from gaining access to firearms. 

How would you feel, if in addition to going through security checkpoints, the government forced you to buy insurance, take classes periodically, and carry a special license that allows you to fly? 

I still believe there are people that want to punish gun owners. Blood on hands. Remember that?

I would LOVE this!!! 

Casual flyers wouldn't go through the hassle, making it easier for those of us who have to fly frequently. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, KCitons said:

By the way, you never answered my question.

I'm noticing this is happening a lot. I answer, but am not offered the same courtesy.

If you find any reason at all to stop conversing with me, please take it. 

  • Laughing 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

I would LOVE this!!! 

Casual flyers wouldn't go through the hassle, making it easier for those of us who have to fly frequently. 

This is a selfish approach. It's all about you.

 

11 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

If you find any reason at all to stop conversing with me, please take it. 

Still all about you. 

I won't feel obliged to answer your questions moving forward. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, KCitons said:

This is a selfish approach. It's all about you.

:confused:

You asked me:

21 minutes ago, KCitons said:

How would you feel

<_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

:confused:

You asked me:

<_<

I thought we weren't supposed to alter other people's posts? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, -fish- said:

Was this post supposed to make sense?  Tell you what...how about you verify it.  It will be good for you to look at something other than the NRA’s website.

who said fish gives links to what he said ?

uh huh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

who said fish gives links to what he said ?

uh huh

dude it's a verifiable fact that's been in the news for a week based on a peer-reviewed study from 2018.   if you left your bunker or the NRA's propoganda site for 10 minutes, you'd know this.  try thinking for yourself for a change.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, -fish- said:

dude it's a verifiable fact that's been in the news for a week based on a peer-reviewed study from 2018.   if you left your bunker or the NRA's propoganda site for 10 minutes, you'd know this.  try thinking for yourself for a change.

in this forum I've been told so often to post a link .... just above I was told how good you are at linking

why is that hard to do here ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

in this forum I've been told so often to post a link .... just above I was told how good you are at linking

why is that hard to do here ?

Here you go.

Now carry on with your lies and deflection about this verified fact.

Edited by -fish-
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

in this forum I've been told so often to post a link .... just above I was told how good you are at linking

why is that hard to do here ?

I think a bit of that statement was the sources that he links, not that he posts links for everything he says.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

in this forum I've been told so often to post a link .... just above I was told how good you are at linking

why is that hard to do here ?

There is a double standard in this thread (and the forum as a whole). I've asked questions that go unanswered and made points that get ignored. It's what happens when the majority of the posters share the same opinion. If someone like fish or politician spock were on a more conservative board, I would expect them to be treated the same. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This echo chamber junk gets so old.  It could be because people have you on ignore, it could be because a got missed in the 30 that day, could be they didn't like the question, could be lots of things.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KarmaPolice said:

This echo chamber junk gets so old.  It could be because people have you on ignore, it could be because a got missed in the 30 that day, could be they didn't like the question, could be lots of things.  

 

Could be. Or it could be that people want to disregard things that don't fit the agenda. 

I'm still waiting for @McJose to impart his knowledge about bullying on us. Seems that he felt it was important enough to pop in and scold me, but not important enough to explain the reasons why. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KCitons said:

Could be. Or it could be that people want to disregard things that don't fit the agenda. 

Your posts make it come across like you believe you are the only free thinker around here and the only one coming in without biases.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

Your posts make it come across like you believe you are the only free thinker around here and the only one coming in without biases.  

It's not my posts, it's also things that I reference. The relation between alcohol and gun violence (or any violence) is a good example. 

You made reference to my frequency of posting. It's okay if 30 different people post the same anti gun comments each day? But if one pro gun person like myself posts 30 times, it's a problem? This is why it's an echo chamber. At times I think that posters here would rather not be challenged on the issue of gun control. So you can all high five each other and not be questioned about your opinions. Other times, I think posters here just want to argue because they think they are always right.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, KCitons said:

It's not my posts, it's also things that I reference. The relation between alcohol and gun violence (or any violence) is a good example. 

You made reference to my frequency of posting. It's okay if 30 different people post the same anti gun comments each day? But if one pro gun person like myself posts 30 times, it's a problem? This is why it's an echo chamber. At times I think that posters here would rather not be challenged on the issue of gun control. So you can all high five each other and not be questioned about your opinions. Other times, I think posters here just want to argue because they think they are always right.  

I dont remember posting about your frequency of posts, but I am old.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, KCitons said:

There is a double standard in this thread (and the forum as a whole). I've asked questions that go unanswered and made points that get ignored. It's what happens when the majority of the posters share the same opinion. If someone like fish or politician spock were on a more conservative board, I would expect them to be treated the same. 

 

Many of your questions and points are tangents, and sometimes even rabbit holes.

It's normal forum behavior that people "don't want to go there". It's not some :tinfoilhat:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, KarmaPolice said:

I dont remember posting about your frequency of posts, but I am old.  

 

11 hours ago, KarmaPolice said:

This echo chamber junk gets so old.  It could be because people have you on ignore, it could be because a got missed in the 30 that day, could be they didn't like the question, could be lots of things.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

Many of your questions and points are tangents, and sometimes even rabbit holes.

It's normal forum behavior that people "don't want to go there". It's not some :tinfoilhat:

I've seen a thread go off on a Cheesecake Factory tangent for 2 pages. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, KCitons said:

I've seen a thread go off on a Cheesecake Factory tangent for 2 pages. 

 

Cheesecake Factory? I LOVE Cheesecake Factory!!!

Please provide a link!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, KCitons said:

 

 

That wasn't specifically towards you, although I get why you took it that way since the first was about people (just person?) saying they have you on ignore.  The 3rd point wasn't specifically about you either.  

Sometimes I will come in after a day or so and there are 2 pages of back and forth, and I will miss post or question that was raised as I read through and try to catch up.   Like PS said, this isn't some :tinfoilhat:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, KarmaPolice said:

That wasn't specifically towards you, although I get why you took it that way since the first was about people (just person?) saying they have you on ignore.  The 3rd point wasn't specifically about you either.  

Sometimes I will come in after a day or so and there are 2 pages of back and forth, and I will miss post or question that was raised as I read through and try to catch up.   Like PS said, this isn't some :tinfoilhat:

Not sure why you guys are using tinfoil hat as an attempt to explain this? It's obvious that most people on this board lean left. Their opinions on the issues prove that. It's also obvious that they hate when they can't change the minds of someone like myself or SC. 

All three of your comments could be taken as directed at me. After all, I was the one that made the statement about not having my questions answered. So to say that someone didn't like the question could be inferring to my question.

I've seen it in this thread and in other threads. The group expects the individual to answer any and all questions, but when the individual asks, it seems okay to ignore the request. I'l make sure to point this out moving forward. Just like I have to make note of those asking for total gun bans. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

Cheesecake Factory? I LOVE Cheesecake Factory!!!

Please provide a link!!!

Link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Not sure why you guys are using tinfoil hat as an attempt to explain this? It's obvious that most people on this board lean left. Their opinions on the issues prove that. It's also obvious that they hate when they can't change the minds of someone like myself or SC. 

All three of your comments could be taken as directed at me. After all, I was the one that made the statement about not having my questions answered. So to say that someone didn't like the question could be inferring to my question.

I've seen it in this thread and in other threads. The group expects the individual to answer any and all questions, but when the individual asks, it seems okay to ignore the request. I'l make sure to point this out moving forward. Just like I have to make note of those asking for total gun bans. 

 

When you play the hidden agenda card, you establish yourself in the :tinfoilhat:world, where you are no longer responding to what people are saying, but are instead responding to what you think their hidden agendas are, or maybe a combination of both. So while there is some truth to what you are experiencing being a minority in the discussion, that doesn't make your belief that people just want to punish law abiding gun owners (and the other hidden agendas you've claimed) true. People just don't want to discuss with a person who plays :tinfoilhat:cards, so they either put them on ignore, don't read their posts, or read them but only respond to the non-:tinfoilhat:stuff. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Levi Strauss takes stand against gun violence

Quote

wrote an open letter requesting that gun owners not bring firearms into our stores, offices, or facilities, even in states where it’s permitted by law.

 

Quote

This was following an incident in one of our stores in which a customer accidentally shot and injured himself while trying on a pair of jeans. While that was bad, it could have been worse: The bullet could have killed him, another customer, or one of our employees.

The two quotes from this article raise a couple of questions. A private company is telling someone to not carry even when the law allows. This wasn't an active shooter situation, this was an accident. (accidents happen with all kinds of other things as well)

The article goes on to say:

Quote

I’m not here to suggest we repeal the Second Amendment or to suggest that gun owners aren’t responsible

In a different article, the CEO states:

Quote

Those constitutional rights don’t apply to everyone, of course. Bergh quotes retired four-star general Michael Hayden, who said in a promotional piece for the Giffords Center that “some people… should never have access to any weapons.

The incident in the Levi store could have happened to a person that passed a background check and had a conceal carry permit. 

 

I've been through active shooter training. The options are run if you can, hide if you can't run, fight if you are confronted by the gunman. The last option is greatly hindered if you do not have a gun. I wonder if private companies can be held liable in the event of an active shooter situation where a person who has a conceal carry permit was not allowed to defend themselves due to the rules of the store?

Also of note:

Quote

Therefore, we are doubling our usual employee donation match to organizations aligned with our Safer Tomorrow Fund. In addition, we’re encouraging employees who are concerned about gun violence to get involved. Levi Strauss & Co. provides employees five hours a month (60 hours a year) in paid volunteer time and we recently expanded this to include political activism.

Doubling the incentive for political reason is not good optics. Would you feel the same if a company did this for it's employees to volunteer with the NRA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

I just felt a desire to buy Levi's that I never had before. That's great marketing. 

It is jorts season after all.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

I just felt a desire to buy Levi's that I never had before. That's great marketing. 

I figured you for a suit and tie kind of guy. Casual to you means your pants don't match your suit jacket. On Fridays you go without the tie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, KCitons said:

I figured you for a suit and tie kind of guy. Casual to you means your pants don't match your suit jacket. On Fridays you go without the tie.

I bought a suit around 20 years ago. Can't even remember why. Never wear it, and haven't bought one since. 

In my field, if you wear a suit, you're a sales rep. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, KCitons said:

There is a double standard in this thread (and the forum as a whole). I've asked questions that go unanswered and made points that get ignored. It's what happens when the majority of the posters share the same opinion. If someone like fish or politician spock were on a more conservative board, I would expect them to be treated the same. 

 

well I've been absolutely mauled and hammered about sources for what I said. Sure, I can google (did days ago) what fish said .... but the burden is on the poster always on this forum to prove what they say. That standard has always existed

fish don't want to link - so I will

http://vpc.org/press/new-data-shows-one-in-four-law-enforcement-officers-slain-in-the-line-of-duty-in-2016-felled-by-an-assault-weapon/

its for 2016 only

its from a site that says "The Violence Policy Center is a national educational organization working to stop gun death and injury."

 

but really .... this is the truth ...... the BLM retaliation shootings IIRC is what spiked the numbers. They (and fish) don't want to talk about other years .... because "assault" weapons are not used in crimes but 1-2% overall consistently. 

 

not even a good try really fish .......... and again, using misinformation to try and make a point on a forum like this ? I'm beginning to wonder if you're like 17 years old or something, not good reasoning and thought process truly

 

 

Quote

 

Those shooting deaths included 21 deaths in ambush-style shootings, "the highest total in more than two decades," NLEOMF said in a statement.

The rise was partly fueled by a few high-profile shootings that took the lives of multiple officers, NLEOMF notes:

"Eight multiple-shooting death incidents claimed the lives of 20 officers in 2016, tied with 1971 for the highest total of any year since 1932. Those incidents included five officers killed in ambush attacks in Dallas (TX) and three in Baton Rouge (LA) spanning 10 days in July."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/16/2019 at 11:50 AM, KCitons said:

Should we take this seriously? 

If so, then it narrows our conversation to mass shooters only (male perpetrators)  And by narrowing that conversation, as it relates to gun regulation, there is A - very little that you can do to be proactive other than banning all firearms and B - you said you don't want to ban all firearms. 

Not sure if that narrows it down to mass shooters.  If you include all gun violence, I would guess a vast majority is male.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

Not sure if that narrows it down to mass shooters.  If you include all gun violence, I would guess a vast majority is male.  

Right. If you include all gun violence then you are talking about percentages. But, your conversation with SC was about profiling based on looks. You made the comment of penises. Which would narrow it down to only one type of shooting that has been perpetrated by males. Mass shootings. 

So, as I said, there is very little you can do to proactively stop mass shootings. Other than banning all guns. An assault rifle ban would just change the weapon used by mass shooters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Right. If you include all gun violence then you are talking about percentages. But, your conversation with SC was about profiling based on looks. You made the comment of penises. Which would narrow it down to only one type of shooting that has been perpetrated by males. Mass shootings. 

So, as I said, there is very little you can do to proactively stop mass shootings. Other than banning all guns. An assault rifle ban would just change the weapon used by mass shooters. 

At least you can admit banning all guns would be effective.  

Talking %s either way.  If its mass shootings its probably about 100%, all gun violence it's also probably very high, but not sure what %. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, if a ban would remove all guns, it would be effective. That's not realistic. It's a global issue, the same way drugs are banned and many aren't even produced in this country, but we see that they still end up in peoples hands. 

I've said I would gladly give up all my guns if there was a guarantee that there would no longer be any gun deaths. But we know that won't happen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Sure, if a ban would remove all guns, it would be effective. That's not realistic. It's a global issue, the same way drugs are banned and many aren't even produced in this country, but we see that they still end up in peoples hands. 

I've said I would gladly give up all my guns if there was a guarantee that there would no longer be any gun deaths. But we know that won't happen. 

Like it's been posted, it's just odd that when other countries do these things there is quite a success.   I don't think countries with bans have been overtaken with crime or haven't seen a decrease in gun deaths and mass shootings.  

There is no absolute in any solution that we are talking about.  No ban is going to get all guns.  Universal background checks aren't going to catch all potential shooters.  Red flags aren't going to get everybody.  On and on.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KarmaPolice said:

Like it's been posted, it's just odd that when other countries do these things there is quite a success.   I don't think countries with bans have been overtaken with crime or haven't seen a decrease in gun deaths and mass shootings.  

There is no absolute in any solution that we are talking about.  No ban is going to get all guns.  Universal background checks aren't going to catch all potential shooters.  Red flags aren't going to get everybody.  On and on.  

Which is why there is a trade off with anything. Whether it's guns, alcohol, cars or drugs. I use drugs since we are seeing the legalization of marijuana in some states. We will see an increase in deaths as people can now be legally impaired. While I'd like to see mass shootings eliminated, I don't foresee any regulation short of a total ban having much effects. I'd also like to see a drunk driving deaths eliminated as well. But, that would take a massive effort and probably a total ban on alcohol for me to see it in my lifetime. What I'm left with is determining where the trade off lies. For me, it's universal background checks in order to keep guns from people that shouldn't have them. Everything else comes without guarantee of prevention. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, KCitons said:

Which is why there is a trade off with anything. Whether it's guns, alcohol, cars or drugs. I use drugs since we are seeing the legalization of marijuana in some states. We will see an increase in deaths as people can now be legally impaired. While I'd like to see mass shootings eliminated, I don't foresee any regulation short of a total ban having much effects. I'd also like to see a drunk driving deaths eliminated as well. But, that would take a massive effort and probably a total ban on alcohol for me to see it in my lifetime. What I'm left with is determining where the trade off lies. For me, it's universal background checks in order to keep guns from people that shouldn't have them. Everything else comes without guarantee of prevention. 

Not sure you have seen an increase in deaths for states that have legalized, but that's not the thread for that.  

I take that last bolded as you saying that the UBC is guaranteed prevention.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

Not sure you have seen an increase in deaths for states that have legalized, but that's not the thread for that.  

I take that last bolded as you saying that the UBC is guaranteed prevention.  

I think it's the one thing that would have the highest net results in regards to proactively addressing mass shooters. The only thing more important would be mental health programs.

All the other proposed regulations would have minimal or no effect in regards to preventing mass shootings. I also think they would have a minimal effect on reducing fatalities resulting from a mass shooting. 

Things like training and storage still rely on the person to follow what they learned. And will only be discovered after a mass shooting. It's reactive and not proactive. 

Licensing would be no different than universal background checks. Frequency of licensing is just a way to burden law abiding owners with hoops to jump through on a predetermined renewal basis. Many of the mass shooters obtained their weapons legally. So I'm not sure what licensing does beyond background checks. I'd like to say we could have a database that is cross referenced each time someone is convicted of a crime. I would imagine the gun database could be held at the Federal level. Most criminal cases are handled at a local or county level. At the time of sentencing, the judge can order a search of the Federal database. Gun forfeiture could be part of the sentencing process for certain crimes. This would prevent the need for periodic licensing for gun owners that never have any other criminal activity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, KCitons said:

I think it's the one thing that would have the highest net results in regards to proactively addressing mass shooters. The only thing more important would be mental health programs.

All the other proposed regulations would have minimal or no effect in regards to preventing mass shootings. I also think they would have a minimal effect on reducing fatalities resulting from a mass shooting. 

 

The thing that amusing about threads like this is every once in awhile a post like this surfaces and despite all the shots fired, anger, and frustration, I am not sure how far off the sides are from each other (at least from the main people posting).  

I don't disagree with much of this post, besides that I don't think we should ignore successes and stats of other countries that have acted on the gun side or looking at crime rates of states that have a difference in gun laws.  

 

Edited by KarmaPolice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KarmaPolice said:

The thing that amusing about threads like this is every once in awhile a post like this surfaces and despite all the shots fired, anger, and frustration, I am not sure how far off the sides are from each other (at least from the main people posting).  

I don't disagree with much of this post, besides that I don't think we should ignore successes and stats of other countries that have acted on the gun side or looking at crime rates of states that have a difference in gun laws.  

 

Look at us agreeing on stuff. :hifive:

I think it's hard to compare our country to other countries due to things like the number of people, number of guns, and gun culture. The closest thing I could think of it the car culture and how it effects climate change. Most people don't think of the effects when they buy a car (or three). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Stealthycat said:

well I've been absolutely mauled and hammered about sources for what I said. Sure, I can google (did days ago) what fish said .... but the burden is on the poster always on this forum to prove what they say. That standard has always existed

fish don't want to link - so I will

http://vpc.org/press/new-data-shows-one-in-four-law-enforcement-officers-slain-in-the-line-of-duty-in-2016-felled-by-an-assault-weapon/

its for 2016 only

its from a site that says "The Violence Policy Center is a national educational organization working to stop gun death and injury."

 

but really .... this is the truth ...... the BLM retaliation shootings IIRC is what spiked the numbers. They (and fish) don't want to talk about other years .... because "assault" weapons are not used in crimes but 1-2% overall consistently. 

 

not even a good try really fish .......... and again, using misinformation to try and make a point on a forum like this ? I'm beginning to wonder if you're like 17 years old or something, not good reasoning and thought process truly

 

 

 

the fact is accurate.   1 in 4 of the officers killed was killed by an assault weapon.   the fact that there was a spike in deaths has nothing to do with the percentage of deaths caused by a particular weapon.   lies and deflection, as usual.   there were 46 officers killed in 2017, and 52 in 2018.   

you're really, really bad at this.

 A study analyzing FBI data showed that 20% of the law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty from 1998 to 2001 were killed with assault weapons.  That number increased after the assault weapons ban expired.

“Officer Down, Assault Weapons and the War on Law Enforcement,” Violence Policy Center, Accessed January 15, 2019, http://www.vpc.org/studies/officeone.htm.

According to a survey by the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), “Thirty-seven percent of the police agencies responding…reported that they have seen noticeable increases in criminals’ use of assault weapons” since the expiration of the federal assault weapons ban in 2004.

Police Executive Research Forum, Guns and Crime: Breaking New Ground by Focusing on the Local Impact(May 2010)http://www.policeforum.org/assets/docs/Critical_Issues_Series/guns and crime - breaking new ground by focusing on the local impact 2010.pdf.

A 2007 report by the International Association of Chiefs of Police recommended that Congress enact an effective ban on military-style assault weapons in order to curb the ability of individuals to “outgun” law enforcement officers.

International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), Taking a Stand: Reducing Gun Violence in Our Communities (2007),

https://web.archive.org/web/20180809115433/https://www.theiacp.org/Portals/0/pdfs/GVR_A-page-iii_IACP-Taking-A-Stand.pdf.

The point, supported by actual verifiable facts over many years of data, is that law enforcement officers face a significantly increased risk of shootings by assault weapons...far more than the "1-2%" that the NRA claims.

Seems that "law abiding citizens" wouldn't want law enforcement to be exposed to this increased level of danger, but they'll justify any risk to cling to their guns.

It's amazing how consistently wrong SC is about every single issue.

Edited by -fish-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having to be tested to get a gun license, and that test including signs of mental health issues related to gun violence, that would deny gun ownership if one fails, would have the highest net result from mass shootings and homicides, as simply relying on backgrorund checks would not catch those who haven't done anything yet. 

Having to be trained on gun safety, and having to pass a test that includes your knowledge of gun safety, would have the highest net result of death from guns, because two thirds of gun deaths are suicides. 

Let me save you the response KCitons.... You disagree, and have stats and data to back it up. We know.... we've heard it all before, ad infinitum. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Politician Spock said:

Having to be tested to get a gun license, and that test including signs of mental health issues related to gun violence, that would deny gun ownership if one fails, would have the highest net result from mass shootings and homicides, as simply relying on backgrorund checks would not catch those who haven't done anything yet. 

Having to be trained on gun safety, and having to pass a test that includes your knowledge of gun safety, would have the highest net result of death from guns, because two thirds of gun deaths are suicides. 

Let me save you the response KCitons.... You disagree, and have stats and data to back it up. We know.... we've heard it all before, ad infinitum. 

Surprised Karma hasn't asked for specifics of your background check to find mental health issues related to gun violence. Yet another example of the double standard. The bolded outlines the issue. You can't prevent what you don't know. 

Training doesn't prevent the negative behavior that would make someone use a gun for violence. You already mentioned the short time it takes for someone to decide to use a gun to commit suicide. This isn't a training issue, it's a  mental health issue. 

You can continue to tell me to shut up, call me a troll, ask others to stop responding. I will continue to stand up for what I believe. My voice and my vote have the same right as yours. 

Edited by KCitons

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Surprised Karma hasn't asked for specifics of your background check to find mental health issues related to gun violence. Yet another example of the double standard. The bolded outlines the issue. You can't prevent what you don't know. 

Training doesn't prevent the negative behavior that would make someone use a gun for violence. You already mentioned the short time it takes for someone to decide to use a gun to commit suicide. This isn't a training issue, it's a  mental health issue. 

You can continue to tell me to shut up, call me a troll, ask others to stop responding. I will continue to stand up for what I believe. My voice and my vote have the same right as yours. 

The training addresses the issue of suicide attempts using someone else's gun, that they did not properly secure... because they didn't know any better.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Politician Spock said:

The training addresses the issue of suicide attempts using someone else's gun, that they did not properly secure... because they didn't know any better.  

It still relies on the person to secure their gun. The same way auto licensing and training addresses the issue of speeding or driving while intoxicated. Once the training is over, it's the persons responsibility to follow through. 

I think you are confusing hope with expectations. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.