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 In Mall In Columbia Maryland (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter James Daulton
- Start date
Dr Oadi
Footballguy
How stronger and why? If the point is to reduce these mass shootings then full out bans of all firearms is the only option. Get some balls and do what needs to be done!Look out, commieWho posted in: Shooting In Mall In Columbia Maryland
Member name Posts timschochet 33 Ignoramus 13 StrikeS2k 10 MaxThreshold 10 KCitons 9 5 digit know nothing 8 DSP 7 DiStefano 7 avoiding injuries 6 JZilla 6
On a serious note, this is obviously a terrible tragedy. :( I am not sure what the solution is, but I think that mental illness is a much bigger problem than guns, so, while I think gun laws should be stricter, it is too easy and far lazier to just bust out the "ban guns!" mantra when something like this happens.
timschochet
Footballguy
Yeah, he's smoked me. The only arguments I have made in this thread have been for universal background checks and registration, and neither 5 Digit nor anyone else has offered a compelling reason why we shouldn't do this.
avoiding injuries
Footballguy
I don't own a gun and don't have a strong opinion about gun laws, but I don't think any law they would have passed would have changed anything that contributed to this instance.
timschochet
Footballguy
That same argument can made after every one of these shootings. But universal background checks would make gun violence less likely.
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
I know you like it because it fits your political views. But while GeneralMalaise is a fine writer, his post here is pretty nonsensical.
timschochet
Footballguy
Couldn't open it. But if you think I get excited about this stuff, that I enjoy it whenever these events occur, that's really pathetic. And extremely offensive.
timschochet
Footballguy
But, see, when I wrote that I gave my reasons why. Do you have any reasons to back up YOUR statement?
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
The point is that his post fits your political views. Doesn't matter the reasons - it fits. So in your mind it's right. Exactly what you accuse others of doing.
Courtjester
The Town Drunk
So because .00001 percent of the population is affected by something, we should pass laws that impact 200+ million people?? It makes no sense Tim. Stop being a sheep and look at facts. There were 10 thousand deaths--that's it. It is a drop in the bucket, but yet people like you and the media hype it like it is the plague.
There is no proof that any form of background checks will have an impact on gun violence. Zero. It is a talking point the left uses to advance their agenda exactly along the lines of "you will have to pass it to see what's in it." That is exactly the argument. "Well, we don't know if it will help, but lets just do it so we can say we did SOMETHING that just so happens to benefit our side's agenda be damned how many people we inconvenience in the process."
Think about it objectively for a minute. To own a car you have to take a test, get a license, pay to register that car, get insurance to protect you and that car, and in some states, you have to take that car to pass safety inspections so you can drive said car. There are literally hundreds of statutes and regulations that dictate how you can drive that car and the penalties for not complying. You would think with all these oversights this would be one of the most regulated activities around,yet there are on average 7 million car accidents in the US and over 40,000 people die each year. There are laws that say specifically you must register it and have a valid license, yet in my personal experience, I see hundreds of individuals appearing in court WEEKLY to address their non-compliance. But wait, there is a law that says you shouldn't do that why aren't they complying?
Lets take that over to gun control,I am a mentally ill person bent on killing people, but (according to you) I will somehow be thwarted in my efforts to follow through on that because some random law stops it or will I just do like Adam Lanza did and obtain the weapon from a law abiding source. Or do you honestly believe the gang members that are shooting each other in record numbers in Chicago nighty are going to comply with registering their guns because some random law says they have to? Law abiding citizens will comply but the violent, mentally ill and criminal elements will continue to be exempt.
The solution to this is not gun control but additional resources for this Country's mentally ill and identifying/intervening at an earlier age so we can hopefully prevent additional Sandy Hooks.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Perhaps the reasons don't matter to YOU. But they do to me, which is why I wrote them. I have no idea if GMs views match mine on this issue. I rather doubt it. Most gun control people want far more restrictions than I do. All I want are background checks, and registration sometime in the future when we can figure out a practical way to do it- but background checks for now- that's all. I have no wish to limit gun ownership to law abiding citizens. I used to be against concealed carry, but I've changed my mind on that. Background checks is the only thing I'm asking for.
timschochet
Footballguy
First off, thanks for making a cogent argument. But I disagree. You say there is zero proof that background checks will reduce gun violence, but in fact law enforcement consistently attributes the decline in gun violence to background checks that already take place on most gun sales. And law enforcement further says that a significant portion of illegal gun ownership that does take place is due to private gun sales that do not involve background checks. As you know, right now a convicted criminal can go to a gun show, walk up to a private dealer, buy a gun, no questions asked. According to the FBI this happens several thousand times each year. In most cases the private dealer is breaking the law by selling to a felon, but he doesn't know it. Max Threshold says we should enforce existing laws. Good, I agree. The best way to go that is to make background checks universal.
danielmclark
Footballguy
People like you supported a ####### war on the other side of the planet that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, most of them completely innocent, over an incident that killed 3,000 Americans once. Trillions of dollars spent in that part of the world, sparked by the deaths of 3,000 people... but to you, 10,000 American deaths a year is a drop in the ####### bucket. Don't try to solve that problem if it might inconvenience you a little bit or force you to give up your toys. After all, what's a few thousand people a year when you need to feed your paranoia?
Courtjester
The Town Drunk
Universal background checks may prevent some from getting firearms legally, sure, but there are dozens of other outlets to get firearms. There are forums such as this one all over the internet where one can go and make arrangements to obtain weapons, There will still be private sales between parties, Do you honestly believe the Feds will have the resources to stop this? If anything more stringent laws will drive MORE transactions to be conducted under the table
Your whole premise is but there is a law that says you must do this so people will do it. Which for the law abiding citizen they will continue to comply, but for the mentally ill and criminals they will not and still be able to do whatever they want.
Where I think we can agree is that the philosophy on background checks is to weed out these people and if you believe the basis for a lot of violent criminals is some form of mental illness, then instead of throwing tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars at establishing a universal background check system, why not pour this into this Country's woeful mental health system? A gun is a symptom of the problem, not the problem. Let's address the problem.
As I made clear earlier, I don't own a gun. I don't really have a dog in this fight per se, but I am tired of seeing politicians (on both sides of the aisle) advancing agendas under the guise of an imaginary crisis. I will say I do enjoy discussing this with you.
Your whole premise is but there is a law that says you must do this so people will do it. Which for the law abiding citizen they will continue to comply, but for the mentally ill and criminals they will not and still be able to do whatever they want.
Where I think we can agree is that the philosophy on background checks is to weed out these people and if you believe the basis for a lot of violent criminals is some form of mental illness, then instead of throwing tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars at establishing a universal background check system, why not pour this into this Country's woeful mental health system? A gun is a symptom of the problem, not the problem. Let's address the problem.
As I made clear earlier, I don't own a gun. I don't really have a dog in this fight per se, but I am tired of seeing politicians (on both sides of the aisle) advancing agendas under the guise of an imaginary crisis. I will say I do enjoy discussing this with you.
Courtjester
The Town Drunk
Ahh...did you read the part of my earlier post on page one where I said I don't own a gun??
Last edited by a moderator:
danielmclark
Footballguy
Does it matter? If you believe the rationale you're promoting here, you're part of the problem.
And incidentally, yes, even if only .00001% of the population is affected, we should pass a law that affects 200 million people. We have a ton of great laws that fit that description, and it's the height of idiocy to suggest that we should only pass laws once we can prove that they'll affect a certain number of people, some threshold. Completely asinine.
Last edited by a moderator:
Courtjester
The Town Drunk
Well, it does sort of derail your whole point that I am paranoid and clinging to my guns when I don't own one, wouldn't you say?
Or perhaps you are one of those people that believe guns jump off tables and kill people since obviously you are not reading what I have written in any of my posts that we should address the problem and not a symptom of the problem.
Ursa M
Footballguy
Most soft targets such as malls, hospitals, universities and transportation systems have no really effective way of preventing these incidents. So, they hardly even try. To be effective, they'd have to spends lots of money or create a major inconvenience. Still, these incidents have a very low likelihood of affecting a individual person. Every day, the major malls in the USA attract up to 100,000 people. Sawgrass mall near Ft. Lauderdale is the second most popular tourist destination in Florida, after Disneyworld, with over 26,000,000 annual visitors. I'll take my chances.
America will not give up her guns. I think deterrence and mitigation is the way to go. Maybe smart camera systems.
America will not give up her guns. I think deterrence and mitigation is the way to go. Maybe smart camera systems.
General Malaise
Footballguy
Oh, no...little Richie Conway thinks my post was terrible. Whatever will I do? Maybe I should be afraid because little Richie is so tough, he needs guns to make himself feel safe and secure. Better not make little Richie mad.Rich Conway said:
We pretty much all agree with the conclusion that mental illness is at the root of many of these attacks. What is a definition of insanity? It is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
Now, it seems to me if someone posts 40 times in this thread, and gets the same results every time (but is expecting the results to be different), we have a potential mass murderer on our hands.
Now, it seems to me if someone posts 40 times in this thread, and gets the same results every time (but is expecting the results to be different), we have a potential mass murderer on our hands.
General Malaise
Footballguy
Boy, that's a lot of words, but I'm guessing his point is that gun deaths account for a fraction of overall deaths in the US, and therefore, NOTHING needs to be done. Am I right?
Okay, without typing a manifest, let me counter. I hung up some mini-blinds this week. The cord for the blinds comes with all sorts of warning labels and signs discussing the dangers and risks of strangulation in infants. And yet, ALL BLINDS sold today come with "Break-Away" safety cords that might save the life of an infant.
Now Court, maybe you can give me the statistics on how many infants actually died from strangulation of mini-blind cords. I'm guessing not not many. In fact, I'd say LESS than the number of deaths by gunshot. And yet despite that, ALL mini-blinds are sold with break-away safety cords. Why? Probably because one death of an infant by strangulation was too much. And because of that, the industry was forced to change.
From where I sit, one death of a child in a school is too many. The first school shooting should have been met with as much uproar and anger as the first child who died in a mini-blind suffocation. But now we've had dozens and dozens of school shootings, mall shootings, church shootings, etc. And nothing is done to change the laws about gun control. That bothers me.
General Malaise
Footballguy
This cliche is so trite and overused it really needs to be retired for good. Crutch of the weak minded, IMO.
And did you just infer that Tim was a potential mass murderer?
Courtjester
The Town Drunk
GM, I agree with you on some of your points, but the central idea I am trying to make is instead of creating a huge bloated government computer system that "may" prevent "some" from getting a gun, but will have zero effect on private sales--which is the main bad guy all the anti-gun types point to, why not use that money to fix the root of the problem?
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
I played chess with a member of the Mossad. Several times in fact.
danielmclark
Footballguy
5 digit know nothing
Footballguy
What are you proposing? Take Newtown for example, or this past mall shooting, idc. What are you proposing that would have prevented either incident?
Courtjester
The Town Drunk
To be fair Daniel, I wasn't trying to be a jerk to you, I just posted my response before you had added your edit. Originally your post was only one line long. I have gone back and read your added info and I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on the solution, but I do think that healthy debate on any issue is a good start.
5 digit know nothing
Footballguy
You are not just passing a law. Passing laws to prevent crime usually accomplish very little. If you want to pass a law saying mini-blinds need breakaway cords and if you don't you face a steep penalty, those are pretty easy to enforce with very little cost. The law I assume you are talking about will cost 10's if not 100's of millions of dollars to support. There is a risk/reward that needs to be considered and if you cannot prove that it will be effective you won't have much luck passing a law that costs that much, effects that magnitude of people, to prevent so few deaths and has no proven backing that it will even work.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ignoramus
Footballguy
What do you see as the root of the problem and what do you see as potential ways to fix it?
PatsWillWin
Footballguy
Seriously.
in·san·i·ty
inˈsanitē/
noun
noun: insanity
1.
the state of being seriously mentally ill; madness.
![[icon]](/data/avatars/s/5/5167.jpg?1660313464){kind=avatar}