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 (2 Viewers)

https://www.foxnews.com/media/beto-orourke-gun-ban-columbine-survivor

Columbine survivor ... that the media cold shouldered when they found out he's not for gun bans

"

"It's insulting and dangerous," he said earlier in the interview. "You're removing the means of protection for millions and millions of law-abiding Americans. I think his ban is misplaced.

"It goes after the wrong people and it goes after the wrong issues," Todd continued. "The law-abiding citizens in this country aren't the problem. There's an element that is a problem. And I think we need to address the realities of mental health and other issues. And the reality is that there's evil in this world.""

truth
I respect his right to hold this opinion

 
Last edited by a moderator:
that's a reasonable thought, I don't disagree with it although with all the above comes better security etc .... risk/reward 

my point all along was most people have several lawyers of protection for their property and lives. that some of us want to have guns .... that's our constitutional right and if I want a handgun, shotgun or semi-auto rifle that's my business and my choices

not -fish's or the radical liberal lefties of the world 
Please quote every time I've ever advocated for a gun ban of any kind.   Why do you keep lying about this.

 
that's a reasonable thought, I don't disagree with it although with all the above comes better security etc .... risk/reward 

my point all along was most people have several lawyers of protection for their property and lives. that some of us want to have guns .... that's our constitutional right and if I want a handgun, shotgun or semi-auto rifle that's my business and my choices

not -fish's or the radical liberal lefties of the world 
The problem is this gets talked about because your fence, alarm, doorlock, security lights stay at your house and only effect your family or somebody breaking into your house.  

Guns and dogs on the other hand...

 
lets say 50 million American's own 100 million semi-auto rifles

you ok with that right ? 
I think it’s incredibly stupid, but that doesn’t mean I’ve advocated for a gun ban of any kind.  You keep lying and saying I’m trying to take your guns.  Show me any post where I advocated for a gun ban.  Or stop lying.

i totally understand why some people want to ban assault weapons.  It’s just not the approach I would take.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The problem is this gets talked about because your fence, alarm, doorlock, security lights stay at your house and only effect your family or somebody breaking into your house.  

Guns and dogs on the other hand...
actually not so much

60 million homes have guns? 80 million today? 400 million total?

if they were a problem - the ones law abiding people have - I think you'd know it, don't you ?

its the criminals and violent people ... those are what needs talked about, don't you think ?

 
I think it’s incredibly stupid, but that doesn’t mean I’ve advocated for a gun ban of any kind.  You keep lying and saying I’m trying to take your guns.  Show me any post where I advocated for a gun ban.  Or stop lying.

i totally understand why some people want to ban assault weapons.  It’s just not the approach I would take.
there are no assault weapons - there are semi-auto rifles that people use to hunt and for self defense ..... you don't want to take those do you ?

 
actually not so much

60 million homes have guns? 80 million today? 400 million total?

if they were a problem - the ones law abiding people have - I think you'd know it, don't you ?

its the criminals and violent people ... those are what needs talked about, don't you think ?
No, because there are plenty of law abiding and well intentioned people that do stupid things and put other people in danger - and to me that means people walking around with guns,  their guns getting used in crimes, etc... 

It doesn't matter to me what we are talking about, do what you want at home.  When it starts effecting the public as a whole, then I think it needs to be talked about and addressed.  

 
No, because there are plenty of law abiding and well intentioned people that do stupid things and put other people in danger - and to me that means people walking around with guns,  their guns getting used in crimes, etc... 

It doesn't matter to me what we are talking about, do what you want at home.  When it starts effecting the public as a whole, then I think it needs to be talked about and addressed.  
you just covered cigarettes, opioids, automobiles, obesity and other things that people die from ......... are taking away those things the solution ? no ? why not ?

take away the violent people that use guns that are known criminals, that shouldn't have gotten guns etc ... how many are actually legal, law abiding people who never did anything wrong but all of a sudden snapped and killed people ?

10% ?  5%  ?

I don't think its high - these people killing others are already known threats to society - its not common for one of the tens of millions of gun owners to actually go crazy and kill 

We, the legal law abiding gun owners are NOT THE PROBLEM. Please focus the attention on the criminals, it'd sure help things a lot

 
Explain? Where is the fallacy in the statement?
SC argues that we shouldn't attempt to address assault weapons only because they're only 2% of the problem (let's assume this is correct, even if it probably isn't).  He instead points to a mystical "dealing with violent people" solution that he insists is the correct approach and would be a better solution.   

Rejecting an incremental solution because it doesn't address a problem completely (as an imaginary perfect solution would) is a logical fallacy that can be used to reject just about any argument for a solution.   This is particularly true where factual data shows that the 1994 assault weapon restriction reduced injuries and deaths from mass shootings.   

 
SC argues that we shouldn't attempt to address assault weapons only because they're only 2% of the problem (let's assume this is correct, even if it probably isn't).  He instead points to a mystical "dealing with violent people" solution that he insists is the correct approach and would be a better solution.   

Rejecting an incremental solution because it doesn't address a problem completely (as an imaginary perfect solution would) is a logical fallacy that can be used to reject just about any argument for a solution.   This is particularly true where factual data shows that the 1994 assault weapon restriction reduced injuries and deaths from mass shootings.   
its not "mystical"

everyday our police nationwide and authorities risk their lives dealing with violence - its sick to discredit what they do in an effort to stop criminals -fish ...... you're better than that

banning a least used weapon knowing they'll easily grab other weapons isn't a "incremental solution" if stopping violence/killing is the goal .... its an utter failure . If disarming law abiding people is the goal yeah, it'll do that :(  

 
Stealthycat said:
its not "mystical"

everyday our police nationwide and authorities risk their lives dealing with violence - its sick to discredit what they do in an effort to stop criminals -fish ...... you're better than that

banning a least used weapon knowing they'll easily grab other weapons isn't a "incremental solution" if stopping violence/killing is the goal .... its an utter failure . If disarming law abiding people is the goal yeah, it'll do that :(  
What if someone's main goal is to stop the deadliest aka school/church/concert shootings? 

 
Stealthycat said:
its not "mystical"

everyday our police nationwide and authorities risk their lives dealing with violence - its sick to discredit what they do in an effort to stop criminals -fish ...... you're better than that

banning a least used weapon knowing they'll easily grab other weapons isn't a "incremental solution" if stopping violence/killing is the goal .... its an utter failure . If disarming law abiding people is the goal yeah, it'll do that :(  
What’s your plan for stopping all violent people?

 
I note that SC has no response to the studies that show the 1994 restriction actually did reduce the number of deaths and injuries from mass shootings.  If a fact doesn’t fit your narrative, ignore, lie  and deflect.

 
What’s your plan for stopping all violent people?
I think he said he wants to bring back mental institutions and lock them up for life. 

ETA- 0 clue how that stops all violence.  I guess they just magically wont be violent in the institution? 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Stealthycat said:
you just covered cigarettes, opioids, automobiles, obesity and other things that people die from ......... are taking away those things the solution ? no ? why not ?

take away the violent people that use guns that are known criminals, that shouldn't have gotten guns etc ... how many are actually legal, law abiding people who never did anything wrong but all of a sudden snapped and killed people ?

10% ?  5%  ?

I don't think its high - these people killing others are already known threats to society - its not common for one of the tens of millions of gun owners to actually go crazy and kill 

We, the legal law abiding gun owners are NOT THE PROBLEM. Please focus the attention on the criminals, it'd sure help things a lot
I didn't say anything about taking away.  I said that is when I feel we need to have a discussion about them.

Honestly, if I take your posts at face value, IMO gun owners like you are part of the problem.  

 
It's also sad that he thinks "these people killing others are known threats to society".  

Nevermind the FBI report saying there isn't a common link, and that was just with mass shooters.  Bringing up the 2-3 really obvious cases like Cruz isn't proof that we know who these people are ahead of time with any certainty.  

 
It's also sad that he thinks "these people killing others are known threats to society".  

Nevermind the FBI report saying there isn't a common link, and that was just with mass shooters.  Bringing up the 2-3 really obvious cases like Cruz isn't proof that we know who these people are ahead of time with any certainty.  
I think handling all of the lead may be an issue

 
What if someone's main goal is to stop the deadliest aka school/church/concert shootings? 
the deadliest have been using airplanes and bombs right ?

the Texas bell tower shooter used a bolt action right? JFK killed with bolt action. The VA Tech was handguns as was Luby's and ... well, you can see for yourself

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States

As you can see, handguns are used, a lot .... if semi-auto rifles were banned these shooters would use handguns/shotguns, alter their plan of attack and they'd continue on.

You agree right ? 

 
What’s your plan for stopping all violent people?
releasing juvenile records, 5X penalties for violent crimes or even more. I'd use capital punishment a lot for people like Nikolas Cruz, he should already be dead. Send clear message that we're not going to be terrorizes anymore as a nation by the small % who want to be violent. I think hotlines are great for reporting and action plans that go through the right channels to get authorities involved with people who are on the verge of hurting others. We've seen a lot of that lately and those are great things to see. Prevention.

we could delve into the education that's needed, strong economy helps, illegal drugs are at the core of a lot of violence, gangs and thug life ...... that's an entire thread you're wanting to go into

but yes, I think as a society we can focus on preventing violence

 
I note that SC has no response to the studies that show the 1994 restriction actually did reduce the number of deaths and injuries from mass shootings.  If a fact doesn’t fit your narrative, ignore, lie  and deflect.
if I were like you I'd just say they're not credible enough for me 

seems like you use that a lot as a scapegoat to points made huh ?

if semi-auto rifles are so horrible .... how can tens of millions of people hunt every fall, putting in literally hundreds of millions of hours .... and nobody is murdered and rare rare is there an accident. 

its not the gun, it never has been

 
Then he’ll argue that a shotgun would do more damage.  Or a van.  There is never an incremental solution.   


the deadliest have been using airplanes and bombs right ?

the Texas bell tower shooter used a bolt action right? JFK killed with bolt action. The VA Tech was handguns as was Luby's and ... well, you can see for yourself

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States

As you can see, handguns are used, a lot .... if semi-auto rifles were banned these shooters would use handguns/shotguns, alter their plan of attack and they'd continue on.

You agree right ? 

 
I note that SC has no response to the studies that show the 1994 restriction actually did reduce the number of deaths and injuries from mass shootings.  If a fact doesn’t fit your narrative, ignore, lie  and deflect.
If you have a particular study in mind and can link it or refer me to it I would like to read it.  I have seen some such efforts in the past.  I would be appreciative of the opportunity to read that study or those studies which have shaped your opinions on this subject. 

 
releasing juvenile records, 5X penalties for violent crimes or even more. I'd use capital punishment a lot for people like Nikolas Cruz, he should already be dead. Send clear message that we're not going to be terrorizes anymore as a nation by the small % who want to be violent. I think hotlines are great for reporting and action plans that go through the right channels to get authorities involved with people who are on the verge of hurting others. We've seen a lot of that lately and those are great things to see. Prevention.

we could delve into the education that's needed, strong economy helps, illegal drugs are at the core of a lot of violence, gangs and thug life ...... that's an entire thread you're wanting to go into

but yes, I think as a society we can focus on preventing violence
You love a very simplified reading of the 2nd amendment but completely ignore the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th amendments. 

Also, as you noted, drugs are illegal. I don’t disagree that drugs can sometimes lead to violent crime, but we’ve made drugs illegal and punish the possession and sales of them relatively harshly. What’s your proposal on this issue? 

 
"We should do something about evil people!"

"Agreed.  What if we started by making it harder for them to get military-grade weaponry to do evil with?"

"No. Anything but that."

 
You love a very simplified reading of the 2nd amendment but completely ignore the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th amendments. 

Also, as you noted, drugs are illegal. I don’t disagree that drugs can sometimes lead to violent crime, but we’ve made drugs illegal and punish the possession and sales of them relatively harshly. What’s your proposal on this issue? 
I do not and never will support recreational drug use. Blowing the mind for fun? Sorry, I can't get on board. 

Exceptionally harsh penalties for drug traffickers .... not the users, the traffickers. Make it so that its not worth the risk. 

 
"We should do something about evil people!"

"Agreed.  What if we started by making it harder for them to get military-grade weaponry to do evil with?"

"No. Anything but that."
"We should do something about evil people!"

"Agreed.  Lets stop them before they act, lets punish harshly and send a clear message that people are tired of being terrorized ?"

"No. Anything but that."

 
I do not and never will support recreational drug use. Blowing the mind for fun? Sorry, I can't get on board. 

Exceptionally harsh penalties for drug traffickers .... not the users, the traffickers. Make it so that its not worth the risk. 
So harsh penalties will work on drug traffickers but making possessing certain guns unlawful (and therefore punishable by harsh penalties) won't work on assailants/mass shooters? 

 
"We should do something about evil people!"

"Agreed.  Lets stop them before they act, lets punish harshly and send a clear message that people are tired of being terrorized ?"

"No. Anything but that."
I don't think you understand or grasp how difficult it is to accomplish the bold. 

 
if I were like you I'd just say they're not credible enough for me 

seems like you use that a lot as a scapegoat to points made huh ?

if semi-auto rifles are so horrible .... how can tens of millions of people hunt every fall, putting in literally hundreds of millions of hours .... and nobody is murdered and rare rare is there an accident. 

its not the gun, it never has been
at least 2400 people are shot hunting annually. Luckily only about 75 die. 

This actually provides further proof of just how lethal assault rifles are during mass shootings. I mean look at el paso. 22 dead out of 46 shot. 

 
So harsh penalties will work on drug traffickers but making possessing certain guns unlawful (and therefore punishable by harsh penalties) won't work on assailants/mass shooters? 
sigh

why would you think that making my semi-auto hunting rifle would impact a violent person in any way, shape or form ? 

 
at least 2400 people are shot hunting annually. Luckily only about 75 die. 

This actually provides further proof of just how lethal assault rifles are during mass shootings. I mean look at el paso. 22 dead out of 46 shot. 
link ?

when you count the millions of hours that hunters are in the field .... yes, its rare that there is an accident 

 
"We should do something about evil people!"

"Agreed.  Lets stop them before they act, lets punish harshly and send a clear message that people are tired of being terrorized ?"

"No. Anything but that."
We're doing all that whenever possible.  Many of these incidents are suicide missions.  Do you really think those people are easily deterred?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
link ?

when you count the millions of hours that hunters are in the field .... yes, its rare that there is an accident 
There would probably be more, but three times as many people get hurt falling out of tree stands each year. I mean those guys cant even stay in the tree long enough to accidentally shoot themselves or somebody else. 

 
I don't. I'm not for more restrictive gun laws. I just find your proffered resolutions to be weak. 


No, not at all. Which, again, is why I am not advocating for more restrictive gun laws. 


Liberals are going bonkers over BETO's honest ... a few agree with him openly, some privately and many are like dang BETO, you're telling the truth :(

if we go the liberal route - allow all illegal drugs and there will be no drug dealing thugs/cartel/gangs etc right? maybe we treat guns the same way, make everything legal and that would solve the violence ?

no ... because guns isn't needed for violence, drugs are needed for drug addiction.  Violence is the core problem .... its never been the guns.  

 
Hunting sober is like fishing..... sober. 
I was actually shocked to read that alcohol was only a factor in 10% of treestand falls and 1.5% of firearm related injuries. Not sure how reliable some of these hunting sources are, but seems to be a commonly repeated stat and I don't find anything debunking it. 

Seems stupidity is a much bigger cause. Who knew?

 
SC assumes anyone who wants any increase in gun regulations ultimately wants to ban guns. They're just not admitting it.
that's historically correct

age limits pushed, restrictions on guns pushed, more age laws pushed, background checks pushed ............ always something more restrictive, more laws affecting law abiding people

at least Beto is honest

 
ban tree stands ?

where is that link /
Maybe we should.  I mean 28% of bow hunters report falling from their stands and 14% of gun hunters fall. Whats also interesting is how far more shooting accidents happen from deer hunters in stands than other kinds of hunting. Maybe like a super double correlation there. 

Or maybe deer just look more like people than geese and "varmints" 

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top