What's new
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 (6 Viewers)

Juxtatarot said:
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.
Click to expand...
Banning assault weapons is attacking 1/100th of the problem. I took it as you saying that you would attack the worst of the problem.

Now I see that you are putting a ridiculous threshold (100x that of all other causes of death). That actually makes me think your opinion is an outlier. (and I thought we might be able to find common ground). There have been a lot of numbers used to justify gun regulation. 10x-12x the number of gun deaths per capita vs other developed countries is one. You're saying that we could have the same for alcohol related deaths, and you'd still be a long way from suggesting ban on alcohol.

I'm sorry. It feels like there is an agenda behind the reasoning for any gun ban that doesn't have meaningful results. 

 
KCitons said:
Banning assault weapons is attacking 1/100th of the problem. I took it as you saying that you would attack the worst of the problem.
Click to expand...
But, of course, nobody is suggesting it be the only thing done. There needs to be a multi-pronged approach.

I don’t know how many lives such a ban would save.  Some say it wouldn’t save any because people would use alternative weapons just as effectively. I suspect, though, it would save some.

What should make the ban easy is most people don’t think anyone is negatively impacted in a meaningful way by not having such a gun. I, and most people, don’t care that some law abiding, responsible people would have to go without.

 
KCitons said:
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.
Click to expand...
Nice distraction you got going. Whataboutism works! 

 
KCitons said:
Banning assault weapons is attacking 1/100th of the problem. I took it as you saying that you would attack the worst of the problem.

Now I see that you are putting a ridiculous threshold (100x that of all other causes of death). That actually makes me think your opinion is an outlier. (and I thought we might be able to find common ground). There have been a lot of numbers used to justify gun regulation. 10x-12x the number of gun deaths per capita vs other developed countries is one. You're saying that we could have the same for alcohol related deaths, and you'd still be a long way from suggesting ban on alcohol.

I'm sorry. It feels like there is an agenda behind the reasoning for any gun ban that doesn't have meaningful results. 
Click to expand...
My goodness you’re full of it. 

 
Banning assault weapons is attacking 1% of what problem?   

Gun deaths.  

Well, I thought we were talking about mass shootings, specifically these school/church/concert shootings

Oh, why don't you care about all gun deaths??!!

I do, but that's not what I was talking about. 

Booze! 

 
Juxtatarot said:
But, of course, nobody is suggesting it be the only thing done. There needs to be a multi-pronged approach.

I don’t know how many lives such a ban would save.  Some say it wouldn’t save any because people would use alternative weapons just as effectively. I suspect, though, it would save some.

What should make the ban easy is most people don’t think anyone is negatively impacted in a meaningful way by not having such a gun. I, and most people, don’t care that some law abiding, responsible people would have to go without.
Click to expand...
SC and KC like suggesting that other people are suggesting that only one thing is to be done.  

 
Juxtatarot said:
But, of course, nobody is suggesting it be the only thing done. There needs to be a multi-pronged approach.

I don’t know how many lives such a ban would save.  Some say it wouldn’t save any because people would use alternative weapons just as effectively. I suspect, though, it would save some.

What should make the ban easy is most people don’t think anyone is negatively impacted in a meaningful way by not having such a gun. I, and most people, don’t care that some law abiding, responsible people would have to go without.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't this apply to the an alcohol ban as well? If we were able to wave a magic wand and remove all guns from this country, there is no doubt that we would all be safer. Gun deaths would plummet to zero. Also, if we were able to wave a magic wand and remove all alcohol from this country, we would also be safer. 

What purpose does alcohol serve to society? Why would it matter if we banned it. I don't care if you are a responsible drinker and have never drank and drove. 

It's an absolute double standard being applied to two inanimate objects that account for thousands of deaths every year. 

 
KarmaPolice said:
Banning assault weapons is attacking 1% of what problem?   

Gun deaths.  

Well, I thought we were talking about mass shootings, specifically these school/church/concert shootings

Oh, why don't you care about all gun deaths??!!

I do, but that's not what I was talking about. 

Booze! 
Click to expand...
Try to keep up. Have people complained that CDC doesn't track the specifics of gun deaths due to the NRA? What about tracking the number of alcohol related deaths due to specific types of alcohol? There is no NRA standing in the way of that study. (there could very well be interference by the alcohol lobbyists). If we found out that 95% of all DUI's were a result of someone drinking Bourbon or Gin, would it make sense that we should ban that specific type of alcohol?

This thread didn't exist 5 years ago. It's only because of deaths from mass shootings that we are even having a discussion. 

 
KarmaPolice said:
SC and KC like suggesting that other people are suggesting that only one thing is to be done.  
Click to expand...
Please provide a link. 

You're starting to show your group mentality again. Trying to fit in with the clique by attacking the outliers. 

What are the top 3 things being proposed by most of the Democratic candidates?

 
KCitons said:
Wouldn't this apply to the an alcohol ban as well? If we were able to wave a magic wand and remove all guns from this country, there is no doubt that we would all be safer. Gun deaths would plummet to zero. Also, if we were able to wave a magic wand and remove all alcohol from this country, we would also be safer. 

What purpose does alcohol serve to society? Why would it matter if we banned it. I don't care if you are a responsible drinker and have never drank and drove. 

It's an absolute double standard being applied to two inanimate objects that account for thousands of deaths every year. 
Click to expand...
This gets back to what the majority of people think being a guiding principle of what should be banned.

Most people can weigh the pros and cons of banning alcohol and come to the conclusion that we shouldn’t ban it.  Are you actually in favor of such a ban or are you just using it as an example?  I suspect the latter.

Most people can weigh the pros and cons of banning assault weapons (as I did) and come to the conclusion that they should be banned.

I get that you don’t agree.  We all never will. 

 
Juxtatarot said:
This gets back to what the majority of people think being a guiding principle of what should be banned.

Most people can weigh the pros and cons of banning alcohol and come to the conclusion that we shouldn’t ban it.  Are you actually in favor of such a ban or are you just using it as an example?  I suspect the latter.

Most people can weigh the pros and cons of banning assault weapons (as I did) and come to the conclusion that they should be banned.

I get that you don’t agree.  We all never will. 
Click to expand...
Example.

I use it as a comparison when it comes to deciding what should/shouldn't be banned. (that applies to guns, alcohol, box cutters on planes, lawn darts or whatever). It always comes down to the loss of life. We can save twice as many lives by banning alcohol. I know, everyone says that we won't be able to ban alcohol because we tried 100 years ago. Those same people don't take into account that there is no guarantee that an assault weapons ban (or any gun ban) will be effective either. It's interesting that that prohibition lasted 13 years and people can make definitive conclusions that it wouldn't work now, a century later. However, we had an assault weapons ban two decades ago that lasted 10 years. People are convinced that it will be the effective, even though there are experts that feel the results are inconclusive. It's another example of a double standard being applied. 

I guess it comes down to justifying the change. (specifically bans) If we want to come into this thread each time there is a mass shooting and call for change, then it's about the loss of lives. I believe all lives are equal. The cause is no greater due to the social acceptance of an item. Do we have an obligation to protect our children from gunfire, alcohol, lawn darts, or PCP?

 
Not going to dig through the past pages for that.  I will be sure to point it out to you if one of you seem to be suggesting that people only want bans or only care about banning guns though.  

 
KarmaPolice said:
Not going to dig through the past pages for that.  I will be sure to point it out to you if one of you seem to be suggesting that people only want bans or only care about banning guns though.  
Click to expand...


KCitons said:
Please provide a link. 

You're starting to show your group mentality again. Trying to fit in with the clique by attacking the outliers. 

What are the top 3 things being proposed by most of the Democratic candidates?
Click to expand...

 
You obviously want to make a point, so make it.  

I don't have my notes with me on the average top 3 things Democratic candidates are proposing.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
KarmaPolice said:
You obviously want to make a point, so make it.  

I don't have my notes with me on the average top 3 things Democratic candidates are proposing.  
Click to expand...
You know what they are without looking. It's background checks, gun bans and closing the gun show loophole. 

I understand now that it's not about saving lives. It's about removing weapons that people think shouldn't be allowed in the hands of citizens. Would that have happened without the proliferation of mass shootings over the past decade? Some here are telling me it would. Data proves otherwise. 

Would background checks, closing the gun show loopholes, and red flag laws do enough to reduce the number of gun deaths and mass shootings. While also not infringing on the rights of law abiding gun owners? Perhaps. But, that's not what people are trying to accomplish. They aren't looking for a win-win compromise. They are wanting to ban certain weapons. And mass shootings are just a convenient way for them to achieve that goal. They stir the pot by instilling fear in elementary school children, then claim we need to protect our kids from the a treat as frequent as lightning strikes. 

Thanks, I understand now. And as a result, I'm more resolute in my stance that banning is not the first step. Implement universal background checks and red flag laws, close the gun show loophole and track the data for 10 years before any other changes can be made. 

 
It's cool, you seem to agree with a majority of the proposals they are making but one.  Evidently that one would be a deal breaker.  

 
Lastly, I feel that a good portion of the discussion also includes what one side would probably consider a compromise of sorts in that they are suggesting things that would still allow for hunting and defending.   I understand how the other side would have the impulse to dig their heels in on that since they would see it as non-gun owners not giving up anything. I guess my hope is that there are more gun owners like DW and less like SC.  

 
Keep in mind, there are 2 people here (that tend to be lumped together) in SC and myself. Even though there are others that align with our point of view, but don't feel like putting a target on their back. SC and I are having discussions with 10 different people. I try to answer every question and have an honest discussion with each. You (and others) have to concentrate on discussions with 2 people. And I'm not talking about a discussion with the others that you agree with. So, it comes off as being lazy when I'm tasked with answering questions, but others take a lackadaisical approach to answering mine. Intentional or not, it makes things seem disingenuous.  

 
KarmaPolice said:
Didn't disappoint with that rant.  
Click to expand...
It wasn't a rant. It's the truth. Do you disagree that the purpose of the assault weapons ban is not because of mass shootings, but because a majority of the population believes that assault weapons should not be in the hands of civilians?

KarmaPolice said:
It's cool, you seem to agree with a majority of the proposals they are making but one.  Evidently that one would be a deal breaker.  
Click to expand...
I've been advocating universal background checks and gun show loophole since day one. You know that. I've also been one of the very few that are looking for a win-win. Also one of the few that remove emotion from the conversation. I guess that's expected on a left leaning board. 

 
Juxtatarot said:
But, of course, nobody is suggesting it be the only thing done. There needs to be a multi-pronged approach.

I don’t know how many lives such a ban would save.  Some say it wouldn’t save any because people would use alternative weapons just as effectively. I suspect, though, it would save some.

What should make the ban easy is most people don’t think anyone is negatively impacted in a meaningful way by not having such a gun. I, and most people, don’t care that some law abiding, responsible people would have to go without.
Click to expand...
Why ban a gun that is used in 2% of gun violence?  Here’s what rational people see:

Poway: AR-15

Aurora: AR-15

Orlando: AR-15

Parkland: AR-15

Las Vegas: AR-15

Sandy Hook: AR-15

Waffle House: AR-15

San Bernardino: AR-15

Midland/Odessa: AR-15

Sutherland Springs: AR-15

Tree of Life Synagogue: AR-15

I don’t care whether someone may not get to shoot at targets or varmints with their gun of choice.

 
-fish- said:
Why ban a gun that is used in 2% of gun violence?  Here’s what rational people see:

Poway: AR-15

Aurora: AR-15

Orlando: AR-15

Parkland: AR-15

Las Vegas: AR-15

Sandy Hook: AR-15

Waffle House: AR-15

San Bernardino: AR-15

Midland/Odessa: AR-15

Sutherland Springs: AR-15

Tree of Life Synagogue: AR-15

I don’t care whether someone may not get to shoot at targets or varmints with their gun of choice.
Click to expand...
Now you’ve done it 

RECENTLY BROWSING   4 MEMBERS

McJose 

Stealthycat 

-fish- 

Juxtatarot

 
3. Seth allegedly failed a federal background check. 

U.S. Rep. Tom Craddick told the Midland Reporter-Telegram he had previously failed a background check, although it’s unclear what caused the red flag.

-fish- listed 11 people who used AR15's wrong

Estimates vary as to how many of the rifles are owned in the United States. The National Shooting Sports Foundation has estimated that approximately 5 million to 10 million AR-15 style rifles exist in the U.S. within the broader total of the 300 million firearms owned by Americans.

Lets say 8 million AR15's ... 8 million didn't  use their AR15's wrong today

Why would you shackle 8 million people for the crimes of 11 ? What other things would you do that to as well? Car's? Alcohol? Smoking? Trains? Planes? Swimming pools? I'm curious .... other than Brady Campaign rhetoric and Democrat fear agenda .... why are you so against AR15's? 

Here is a fact - those 11? they'd have used semi-auto handguns or shotguns or some other weapon (even Paddock who was wealthy enough to do Fast and Furious gun running)

Nobody wan't to talk about that do they ?

 
Stealthycat said:
Why would you shackle 8 million people for the crimes of 11 ? 

Here is a fact - those 11? they'd have used semi-auto handguns or shotguns or some other weapon 
Click to expand...
You  say that banning AR15s would “shackle” people and then say there are perfectly good substitutes for AR15s.

Make up your mind.

 
McJose said:
You  say that banning AR15s would “shackle” people and then say there are perfectly good substitutes for AR15s.

Make up your mind.
Click to expand...
no - these violent people will choose other weapons - handguns, shotguns, bolt action rifles ....... knives, bombs, cars 

are you going to ban/restrict EVERY weapon based on the actions of an exceptionally few people ? 

take them from the tens of millions of law abiding people ?

 
-fish- said:
Why ban a gun that is used in 2% of gun violence?  Here’s what rational people see:

Poway: AR-15

Aurora: AR-15

Orlando: AR-15

Parkland: AR-15

Las Vegas: AR-15

Sandy Hook: AR-15

Waffle House: AR-15

San Bernardino: AR-15

Midland/Odessa: AR-15

Sutherland Springs: AR-15

Tree of Life Synagogue: AR-15

I don’t care whether someone may not get to shoot at targets or varmints with their gun of choice.
Click to expand...
It's not about mass shootings. These numbers mean nothing. It's about assault weapons in the hands of civilians. If that's true, then the real rational people don't see the those places/events as being any more or less important than Chicago or Detroit or St Louis. 

 
Stealthycat said:
no - these violent people will choose other weapons - handguns, shotguns, bolt action rifles ....... knives, bombs, cars 

are you going to ban/restrict EVERY weapon based on the actions of an exceptionally few people ? 

take them from the tens of millions of law abiding people ?
Click to expand...
You  say that banning AR15s would “shackle” people and then say there are perfectly good substitutes for AR15s.

Make up your mind.

 
Juxtatarot said:
Are you joking?  Who says nothing matters but banning assault weapons? You keep arguing against points that I haven’t read people making.
Click to expand...
Show me the Democrat plans to stop these criminals that doesn't include banning/restricting AR15's 

Some good ideas that'll target these people, keep them away from society, stop them before they act, change the environment where 95% of deaths including guns happen etc

Or

show me the political agenda plans that scream how bad AR15's are and we have to get them out of the hands of american citizens ... that you can do. The other? I dunno ... maybe its there, buried deep ... but you won't see it on CNN or during the DNC debates

 
Stealthycat said:
Here is a fact - those 11? they'd have used semi-auto handguns or shotguns or some other weapon (even Paddock who was wealthy enough to do Fast and Furious gun running)

Nobody wan't to talk about that do they ?
Click to expand...
There is talk about that all the time.  Pretty sure several people have stated they would be perfectly fine to have these people try to carry out mass attacks with knives and baseball bats.  

Hence why people have specifically addressed the "semi-auto" part, if the ARs are more lethal/capable/efficient of doing mass damage as hanguns are, etc, etc.   There is a lot of talk about this stuff in here, but I understand why you would want to ignore that part and continually post that nobody is talking about those things.  

 
Juxtatarot said:
Are you joking?  Who says nothing matters but banning assault weapons? You keep arguing against points that I haven’t read people making.
Click to expand...


Juxtatarot said:
This gets back to what the majority of people think being a guiding principle of what should be banned.

Most people can weigh the pros and cons of banning alcohol and come to the conclusion that we shouldn’t ban it.  Are you actually in favor of such a ban or are you just using it as an example?  I suspect the latter.

Most people can weigh the pros and cons of banning assault weapons (as I did) and come to the conclusion that they should be banned.

I get that you don’t agree.  We all never will. 
Click to expand...


Juxtatarot said:
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.
Click to expand...

 
KarmaPolice said:
There is talk about that all the time.  Pretty sure several people have stated they would be perfectly fine to have these people try to carry out mass attacks with knives and baseball bats.  

Hence why people have specifically addressed the "semi-auto" part, if the ARs are more lethal/capable/efficient of doing mass damage as hanguns are, etc, etc.   There is a lot of talk about this stuff in here, but I understand why you would want to ignore that part and continually post that nobody is talking about those things.  
Click to expand...


KCitons said:
...banning is not the first step. Implement universal background checks and red flag laws, close the gun show loophole and track the data for 10 years before any other changes can be made. 
Click to expand...

 
McJose said:
You  say that banning AR15s would “shackle” people and then say there are perfectly good substitutes for AR15s.

Make up your mind.
Click to expand...
I still don't get how he does this go-around in his head.  If the other weapons are less lethal or would do less damage, then there is a reason for a ban, and lives would be saved.  If they are all equally lethal and effective, it's odd that he can't defend his home with a baseball bat.  

 
Juxtatarot said:
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.
Click to expand...


What are those other factors. You made it clear in the statement that it is not just about saving lives. 

 
Did your post not get enough kudos, KC?  I saw it.   

The problem I keep running into with the UBCs and Red Flags being the primary line of defense is we don't seem to be able to pin down correlations between a lot of these mass shooters. If we can't agree on things that we should be flagging, I start to question their effectiveness.  I have stated as much and said that is why I started leaning more to addressing the guns part of the equation and put that at a higher priority.  Again - we aren't (ok, I am not) saying it's only one solution.  I am not against those options as well.  

 
KarmaPolice said:
Did your post not get enough kudos, KC?  I saw it.   

The problem I keep running into with the UBCs and Red Flags being the primary line of defense is we don't seem to be able to pin down correlations between a lot of these mass shooters. If we can't agree on things that we should be flagging, I start to question their effectiveness.  I have stated as much and said that is why I started leaning more to addressing the guns part of the equation and put that at a higher priority.  Again - we aren't (ok, I am not) saying it's only one solution.  I am not against those options as well.  
Click to expand...
No. It was an accurate response to your post. Why would I type it out again when I can just quote it?

The bolded is BS. How many people have been arrested in the last 2 weeks. Expand the net and increase resources. Not much talk about he possible shootings that were prevented. It's as if some people here are rooting for more shootings.

The underlined is why I bring alcohol into the conversation. We've been trying to get people to make responsible decisions with alcohol since prohibition ended almost 100 years ago. We've made some progress, but 80k people still die every years and there isn't even a mention of a ban. We have done very little in regards to gun regulations to get people to make responsible decisions. Background checks would prevent people that shouldn't own guns from owning them. Red flag laws would be the same as the over serving laws for bartenders. I just don't understand why there needs to be a leap towards banning anything when other things have not been given a chance to yield results. That is, unless the agenda is to ban assault weapons. 

 
Max Power said:
Handgun, but 10 kids were shot and very little media interest.  Just add it to the number of school shootings I guess. 
Click to expand...
It was a school shooting, but only because of geography. The reports I read is that it was a dispute that carried over from the neighborhood. The beef was between only a couple of people, the rest were caught in the crossfire. 

Did you find any reports as to how the 17 year old got the gun?

 
It's not BS.  I would be perfectly happy with a continuation of these things being stopped.  But let's not get our pants too tight about a couple a busts vs the 100s of successful mass shootings we are seeing a year.  Now, if that ratio gets reversed...     IMO to get that ratio reversed, we have to know what a majority % of the commonalities of the shooters are.  (and for the 100th time, the answers are different if people are talking all mass shootings or the school/work type shootings).

You say "expand the net" - to what exactly?     Also, part of my hesitation is people like SC who would not bend on the gun confiscation part and are just for locking everybody up.   For me to agree with these I would want to see a blend of arrest/guns gone/rehab/denial of ability to legally buy more guns.   We also saw the downside of Red Flags in the article posted this week.  Some are going to call in the neighbor kid who has long hair and listens to Marilyn Manson, some are going to call in guy with a bunker of guns.  

ETA:  the remark of "It's as if some people here are rooting for more shootings" is a bit much even for you. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
At Least 181 K-12 Educators/Teachers Charged With Child Sex Crimes In First Half Of 2022 (10/1/22 9:22 PST)
Replies
36
Views
1K
tymarsas
T
GordonGekko
Did UC Berkeley Law School Enable "Jewish Free Zones" & Antisemitism With Pro Israel Speaker Bans? ( 10/2/22 11:12 PST)
Replies
10
Views
582
(HULK)
(HULK)
E
Taking Politics Out of Public Schools
Replies
37
Views
882
MAC_32
MAC_32

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 7 (members: 0, guests: 7)
Top