Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
USA Shootings (4 Viewers)
- Thread starter randall146
- Start date
KCitons
Footballguy
I'm still waiting for someone to present an explanation as to why we can apply bans to one thing, but not others. (especially when it comes to loss of life) It seems like the same old statement of "it's stupid" or "it's a judgement call" could be applied to any topic in this forum.
@timschochet do you think Trump uses judgement calls to apply some of his policy decisions? When he flies in the face of logic, he's called out on them.
@timschochet do you think Trump uses judgement calls to apply some of his policy decisions? When he flies in the face of logic, he's called out on them.
Dickies
Footballguy
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
I thought I was pretty clear before, but I guess not.
When I mean raw numbers I mean (and I have said this before) that it doesn't make sense to look at 2 things and say both cause 30K deaths therefore they are the same and need to be addressed the same. That is what I mean when I say people aren't just looking at raw numbers.
You didn't honestly think I mean not to look at stats, do you?
When I mean raw numbers I mean (and I have said this before) that it doesn't make sense to look at 2 things and say both cause 30K deaths therefore they are the same and need to be addressed the same. That is what I mean when I say people aren't just looking at raw numbers.
You didn't honestly think I mean not to look at stats, do you?
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
i guess I view it the other way. When we get to the point where we feel like we have to have armed security at every building and event and live in gated communities behind fences and watchdogs and gun turrets I think they have managed to scare us and terrorize us.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
I made the same point a few weeks ago, I think. Our political system is based on the concept of a democracy. For the most part, things should be banned when the majority of the population wants them banned. (There are a few exceptions based on constitutional rights but that's a separate discussion.)
Yeah this is exactly what they want. These mass shooters are terrorists. Their goal is not only to kill as many people as possible but also to instill fear into the people (often minority/religious groups) that they target. They’re getting exactly what they want by forcing us to change the way we live and constantly live in fear. More guns won’t solve anything.
KCitons
Footballguy
And, THERE IT IS.
I never said to ban cars. I never said to ban alcohol. We are at the point in the conversation where posters are going to use this as an excuse. Cars serve a useful purpose. Guns and alcohol, much less so.
So, this only serves to prove my point of wanting to ban guns, while not wanting to ban alcohol, is not really about wanting to save lives. There is a risk reward with everything we have and do. What is the risk reward in regards to guns and alcohol?
KCitons
Footballguy
This is the closest thing to an reasonable explanation. It begs the question, if there was the same media coverage for lives lost to alcohol, as there is with mass shootings, would the majority of the population call for a ban on alcohol?
KCitons
Footballguy
Then it's not about saving lives. I'll bookmark your comment for future reference.I thought I was pretty clear before, but I guess not.
When I mean raw numbers I mean (and I have said this before) that it doesn't make sense to look at 2 things and say both cause 30K deaths therefore they are the same and need to be addressed the same. That is what I mean when I say people aren't just looking at raw numbers.
You didn't honestly think I mean not to look at stats, do you?
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Feel free to bookmark that, but you know that's not quite what I am saying either.
Dickies
Footballguy
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
Why would the media cover alcohol deaths like that? In my opinion it would have to be because the people are interested in that content. I don’t see this grassroots movement and interest for another alcohol prohibition to drive that.
Sheriff Bart
Footballguy
I would sacrifice anything to make this stop including giving up my own life. Don't compare yourself to me.
KCitons
Footballguy
Why would the media cover gun deaths? (actually, they don't. They only cover mass shootings, while ignoring 99% of gang shootings).
You're last sentence is interesting. If the alcohol related deaths were 100x more than anything else, you still don't believe there would be an interest. Which confirms that gun bans are just part of an agenda. It has nothing to do with actual results.
KCitons
Footballguy
Would you sacrifice anything to stop a child from being killed by a drunk driver?
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
I don’t think any gang shooting is ignored by the media. It just isn’t covered nationally.
If alcohol-related deaths occurred 100 times more than non-alcohol related causes, alcohol would be banned. And I would support that ban.
CurlyNight
Footballguy
It's both hilarious and insane that a day after the Odessa shooting that the TX governor signs into law easier access to weapons. I'm imagining the wild west there. How many innocent people are going to be accidentally? And how are those people who accidentally shot an innocent bystander going to feel? Oops? TX better allocate funds for mental health and counseling!
CurlyNight
Footballguy
Also, according to the president, it's all a mental issue. So other countries don't have any people with mental issues? 
CurlyNight
Footballguy
Don't think so. They gave the least amount of info on the shooter. Now if his name was abdul shiar we'd also have his photo shown yesterday.
Last edited by a moderator:
CurlyNight
Footballguy
KCitons
Footballguy
And yet assault rifle deaths do not occur 100 times more than non assault rifle deaths. But, there is a pretty universal call for an assault weapons ban.
Odd, isn't it. You need stats to determine whether or not you'd back a banning one thing, but the other you follow your gut.
Stealthycat
Footballguy
going to extremes in making your examples aren't you ?
you seem very comfortable with locking your house, your doors in your car, airport security, you don't mind tens of thousands of police and security officers being armed to the gills do you? does it bother you for your sporting events to have security? cameras? metal detectors? do you mind all the laws in place ? do you objects to almost every business having gates and chain fencing and security?
you participate in being "scared" every day don't you? be honest
I don't call it scared - why should I be scared? I'm armed, I can defend myself. There is security in that
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
It isn’t odd at all. Most people don’t see people as harmed by not allowing them to buy assault weapons. They see no need to have them in the first place.
Most people, on the other hand, do understand the role alcohol has in our social lives. They also know what a mess prohibition was the first time.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Nope, I dont think I am going to extremes, I am just voicing an opinion. I will be honest, I dont have a hard line of we need X amount of security and after that is too much. I would say that having armed security at schools is too far for me though.
But yes, I believe a fear of a break in, shooting, etc drives behavior. If not fear, a calculation of a probability that you arent comfortable with. Our basic disagreement is I dont think its natural or healthy to feel like we need to be armed to the teeth and behind walls on a daily basis.
But yes, I believe a fear of a break in, shooting, etc drives behavior. If not fear, a calculation of a probability that you arent comfortable with. Our basic disagreement is I dont think its natural or healthy to feel like we need to be armed to the teeth and behind walls on a daily basis.
KCitons
Footballguy
This wasn't the always the case. But, you (and others) seem to disregard that 97% of the gun deaths are not contributed to assault weapons. I guess that explains things the best. It's not about saving lives at all, whether it's due to guns or alcohol. It's perception of control.
KCitons
Footballguy
Isn't the fear of mass shootings at school driving behavior? The odds of your kid being involved in a school shooting are astronomical. But, we increase the fear and possible PTSD in our children. Seems self inflicted.
What does the need to carry a deadly weapon around at all times have to do with being scared?The guy who thinks he needs a gun at racquetball and has a disaster bunker isn’t scared.
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
I don’t disregard those deaths. I’d like something to be done about those too. I just don’t think banning all guns is the answer (nor do most people).
It is about savings lives but it’s not just about savings lives. There are other factors too. I could explain this more but I suspect it’s obvious.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
That's what I am saying, KC - thanks!
What would be better for the mental health of school kids- a gun ban or armed guards and monthly active shooter drills?
What would be better for the mental health of school kids- a gun ban or armed guards and monthly active shooter drills?
KCitons
Footballguy
You are ignoring option #3. You enact red flag laws and give law enforcement the ability to address potential shooters before they act. You don't incite fear in our children by performing active shooter drills multiple times per year, for a shooting that is very unlikely to happen.
If these shooters are terrorists, we find a way to stop them before they act. After 9/11, we addressed areas to protect the people of this country. We didn't ban airplanes or everyone from flying.
KCitons
Footballguy
I think it needs to be explained.
Seems like you're playing both sides of the equation. If you don't have a desired goal, then you are going to have a hard time defining an effective approach to accomplish that goal.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Not ignoring it, just think personally am starting to think that the gun side would be more effective than the Red Flags. But if it's Red Flags or nothing/arming schools + active shooter drills I would go with Red Flags.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
Not sure why people need this explained much more and feel free to correct me if I am putting words in your mouth, but what I believe you and others are getting at:
It is about saving lives = you wouldn't be bringing up your solution or issues if you didn't think it would reduce the amount of deaths. ie people don't bring up a gun ban just for S&Gs, they bring it up because they think that would save liv es.
It's not JUST about saving lives = we aren't looking just at a situation like "banning X could save 5K lives, but banning Y could save 4.5K lives, therefore banning X is automatically better". There are other factors involved. Is banning X easier, effect the economy differently, etc, etc..
Stealthycat
Footballguy
those few exceptions are in many ways what separates us from other countries - that pesky Constitution that allows for free people in a free society ...
majority doesn't dictate change as often as loud minorities do and in the past 10 years, we now see how media controls change/people more than they control themselves even :(
Last edited by a moderator:
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
KCitons
Footballguy
That is not the prerequisite for banning something. Lawn darts weren't premeditated deaths. Premeditation only defines the criminal charge. Manslaughter can apply to a gun death or a drunk driving death.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
I probably misspoke by using "ban". "solution" would have been better - be it ban, regulations, whatever.
KCitons
Footballguy
Excellent. His example (underlined) is flawed. Very few would have a concern if there was a 500 life difference between banning X vs Y. In the case of assault rifles, it would be the same as saying banning X could save 500 lives, but banning Y could save 50000 lives. That is the 100x difference that you referenced earlier. But you are still choosing to save 500 lives with option X.
KCitons
Footballguy
No. I think you have to take into account bans as just that. There are a lot of hunters that are fine with regulations that cover all guns (background checks, red flag laws, etc). When you start talking about taking something away from someone, then you need to show justification and expected results. Otherwise, it's a shot in the dark. (pun intended)
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
I’m not following. What I wrote earlier is that if alcohol related deaths were 100 times the leading cause of death (an absurd possibility but I was going with it) then I would be for banning alcohol. It’s not in reality so I’m not.
Similar threads
