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.

Shooting at Texas church (4 Viewers)

modogg said:
Is it not possible anymore to have a rational conversation and not put politics into it. This thread seems to have taken a nose-dive quickly with the same old arguments (and I guess with these mass shootings occurring on a regular basis now maybe that is why), and it really seems hard for people to have an actual productive conversation once politics get involved.
Click to expand...
What do you propose we talk about?  

 
Sabertooth said:
What do you propose we talk about?  
Click to expand...
take politics out of it like the disaster that system has become does not exist. And discuss it based off of data and comparisons to other countries, and get to the actual root of the issues, with proposed solutions. How do we discuss any other issue that comes up that isn't soaked in political scum?

 
modogg said:
take politics out of it like the disaster that system has become does not exist. And discuss it based off of data and comparisons to other countries, and get to the actual root of the issues, with proposed solutions. How do we discuss any other issue that comes up that isn't soaked in political scum?
Click to expand...
I read today that America is 4.4% of the world's population, and owns 40% of its guns.  I think you start right there. 

 
Also, is Glock now maybe considered an American company, How about Sig Sauer?  Two of my five Glocks were manufactured here and one of my two Sigs had at least some machining done here.  Seems no matter how I try to divest I keep acquiring more.

As for classic American companies I only own one S & W handgun and none currently by any others.  My shotguns are primarily manufactured here, though not exclusively.  As for rifles and carbines I split about 50/50.  I have a strong liking for Sako products.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I still think we could save lives by banning alcohol. 

Just trying to get the discussion back on track.  :P

 
[icon] said:
:goodposting:

Path A: 95% success rate at theoretically reducing mass shootings by a reasonable degree
Path B: 1% success rate at theoretically reducing mass shootings by a lot

Why would anyone choose to only walk down path B if you could walk down both? Figure it's hedging your bets... no?  So strange. 
Click to expand...
Define reasonable and a lot.

:P

 
Black Box said:
I guess I'm not seeing those hints. It seems to me he thinks it will make a difference and lead to decreased gun deaths. And if you are for the repealing of the 2nd Amendment, this seems like a no-brainer for someone in your position. But maybe I am missing something.
Click to expand...
Basically you're saying that since I want an automobile, a bike would be good too. 

Waste of time and effort if you ask me. 

 
Sabertooth said:
I read today that America is 4.4% of the world's population, and owns 40% of its guns.  I think you start right there. 
Click to expand...
Yuri Orlov: There are over 550 million firearms in worldwide circulation. That's one firearm for every twelve people on the planet. The only question is: How do we arm the other 11?

 
How about intentional homicide rate?

United States: 4.88 per 100k

United Kingdom: .92 per 100k

Think this is related to ease of obtaining a gun?

 
fantasycurse42 said:
What are gun laws like in England? 

What are gun crimes like in England? 

I can help you guys out with the answers:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/06/16/gun-violence-united-kingdom-united-states/85994716/

Really makes you think.
Click to expand...


fantasycurse42 said:
BUT BUT BUT THE 2ND AMENDMENT!!!!! 
Click to expand...
Yep. It's easy to compare when they don't have a Constitution protecting peoples rights. You can make all the comparisons you want. But start with the total population and the total number of guns that would need to be removed, confiscated, or turned in. 

We are too far down the rabbit hole. 

 
KCitons said:
Yep. It's easy to compare when they don't have a Constitution protecting peoples rights. You can make all the comparisons you want. But start with the total population and the total number of guns that would need to be removed, confiscated, or turned in. 

We are too far down the rabbit hole. 
Click to expand...
Yup, the people in the UK have zero rights... I was just enjoying the Queen's youtube channel where she does her midday beheadings. 

There were 0.05 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants in the five years to 2011 (15 to 38 people per annum). Gun homicides accounted for 2.4% of all homicides in the year 2011.

 
I'd expect a bunch of mass shootings and a fair amount of near term pain if we rid our country of guns, but the long term rewards would be well worth it. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
fantasycurse42 said:
Yup, the people in the UK have zero rights... I was just enjoying the Queen's youtube channel where she does her midday beheadings. 

There were 0.05 recorded intentional homicides committed with a firearm per 100,000 inhabitants in the five years to 2011 (15 to 38 people per annum). Gun homicides accounted for 2.4% of all homicides in the year 2011.
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter. The Constitution (as it stands) protects the rights of gun owners. You need to have a monumental shift to change it. I think you can agree with that. It's not something that can or will be taken lightly. Especially if that is step one towards gun control. 

I would also compare it to the war on drugs. It would be a huge cost with little results. 

 
I want to have the right to not have my life taken from me early and be able to watch my kids grow up. But that's just me. 

 
KCitons said:
Doesn't matter. The Constitution (as it stands) protects the rights of gun owners. You need to have a monumental shift to change it. I think you can agree with that. It's not something that can or will be taken lightly. Especially if that is step one towards gun control. 

I would also compare it to the war on drugs. It would be a huge cost with little results. 
Click to expand...
Saving lives is not "little results".... unless you think these mass shootings are "little". 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Black Box said:
You just said a few posts up up that icon's idea was a "waste of time and effort". Seems like his idea could save lives.
Click to expand...
It only played a key role in enabling the largest shooting sprees in Georgia and Texas history, and a significant one in Colorado...off the top of my head.... maybe others. So that's KINDA a waste of time... if anything less than 100% is a waste of time. 

 
belljr said:
This confuses me.

In NJ you don't get a gun legally without registering it 

And why is this a bad law?

In New Jersey, it is illegal to possess any magazine that is capable of accepting more than 15 rounds for semi-automatic rifles/pistols and 6 rounds for semi-automatic shotguns. Police officers may possess these magazines for both personal and official purposes. FFLs may also possess these magazines (N.J.S.A 2C:39-1(y

And I'm not going to pretend know a ton about guns BUT does the Colt Ar15 consist of all AR15s?

They are banned here also
Click to expand...
Anyone? Why are these bad laws?

 
Politician Spock said:
Saving lives is not "little results".... unless you think these mass shootings are "little". 
Click to expand...
I'll be your Huckleberry.

If you read my post, you would know that I was talking about changing the Constitution. Something that will take years, if not decades. 

If you spend all of your time trying to save everyone, you'll end up saving no one. 

 
KCitons said:
I'll be your Huckleberry.

If you read my post, you would know that I was talking about changing the Constitution. Something that will take years, if not decades. 

If you spend all of your time trying to save everyone, you'll end up saving no one. 
Click to expand...
If you read my posts, you would know that all I've been posting about is changing the constitution. 

Trying to fix this problem while keeping the 2nd amendment is like trying to fix the symptoms of cancer while keeping the cancer.

The 2nd amendment is the cancer. 

 
Politician Spock said:
If you read my posts, you would know that all I've been posting about is changing the constitution. 

Trying to fix this problem while keeping the 2nd amendment is like trying to fix the symptoms of cancer while keeping the cancer.

The 2nd amendment is the cancer. 
Click to expand...
Then I guess you are going to unhappy for a long time. 

Peace.

 
KCitons said:
Yes, but choosing to ignore all efforts that would end that parade is childish. Some things are worth taking the small steps to help. 
Click to expand...
All efforts includes getting rid of the 2nd amendment.

People who are treating the symptoms of the cancer won't find me blocking their efforts. I'm against people blocking the efforts of getting rid the cancer. 

 
Politician Spock said:
All efforts includes getting rid of the 2nd amendment.

People who are treating the symptoms of the cancer won't find me blocking their efforts. I'm against people blocking the efforts of getting rid the cancer. 
Click to expand...


Politician Spock said:
If you read my posts, you would know that all I've been posting about is changing the constitution. 

Trying to fix this problem while keeping the 2nd amendment is like trying to fix the symptoms of cancer while keeping the cancer.

The 2nd amendment is the cancer. 
Click to expand...

 
I just don't get it.

(Potential) buyer: Yes, I'd like to buy an assault rifle.

(Potential) Seller: Oh, will this be for hunting?

Buyer: Of course not.  Nobody hunts with an assault rifle!  Where's the sport in that?

Seller: OK, understandable.  Is this for protection?

Buyer: No, no, no.  If threatened, I don't want to risk spraying up my whole house or accidentally gunning down the general public while defending myself.

Seller:  Makes sense.  Then why do you want an assault rifle??

Buyer: You know, "boys and their toys" and all that.

Seller:  Well, we've had enough crazy folks who used assault rifles to harm and kill far too many innocent people than would otherwise be the case.  So unfortunately, we no longer sell them.  Sorry!

Buyer (option 1): :kicksrock:    Darn!  I'd really enjoy shooting one of those at the range!  But I see how those guns are bad for society.  I can get by with my single shooters.

Buyer (option 2):  :rant:   Darn it!  I have a basic right. Murder and mayhem be damned.  Sell me an assault rifle!  I have a right!

 
KCitons said:
Even though you say your concerned with stopping mass shootings, by your own admission, you're focused on the most unlikely change while ignoring other steps that could save lives. 
Click to expand...
How unlikely it is matters nothing to me. It's the solution. 

Even the gun owner nuts are admitting we need better gun regulation/enforcement. That's going to happen, and I'm not standing in the way of that. But it will be no more effective at solving the problem than treating the symptoms of cancer solves cancer. 

 
Jayrod said:
It isn't a cop out and isn't a decision I take lightly.  Just removing freedoms for protection is the cop out, IMO.

Mass shootings, are awful but are still extremely rare whereas political upheaval is not, historically speaking.  I think people who are for repealing the 2nd amendment are being reactionary and shortsighted. 
Click to expand...
What?  That's crazy talk.

 
I asked this question in one of these threads before but could technology help fix this problem for us long term?

I have no clue whether this is possible and if it was how far in to the future it would be but my idea would be:

1. Replacing guns used for protection with taser or taser-like guns that would not kill

2. Any sport gun would have a mechanism that would not allow it to shoot at people

Maybe I'm being naive here but are these two things not possible?  Obviously neither would be foolproof and maybe only 50% effective but something is better than nothing and would continue to improve over time.

 
Politician Spock said:
How unlikely it is matters nothing to me. It's the solution. 

Even the gun owner nuts are admitting we need better gun regulation/enforcement. That's going to happen, and I'm not standing in the way of that. But it will be no more effective at solving the problem than treating the symptoms of cancer solves cancer. 
Click to expand...
Good luck. (and that's not sarcasm) 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

belljr
Tax Guys - Not sure how to proceed - need help
Replies
17
Views
382
arrow1
arrow1
fruity pebbles
Mass shooting in Lewiston, Maine
4 5 6
Replies
282
Views
7K
Cowboysfan8
Cowboysfan8
JAA
  • Locked
Nashville school shooting - The Covenant School is a Christian school for preschool through sixth grade.
Replies
3
Views
826
FBG Moderator
F

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 5 (members: 0, guests: 5)
Top