USA Shootings (4 Viewers)

[abbottjamesr]

The simple reason there is not a ton of discussion on DUI deaths is like so many other topics.  People agree, there is no controversy, there is nothing to really discuss and disagree about.  People agree regulations should happen...people agree its bad...people agree with laws against drunk driving.  Its not in the same stratosphere as shooting deaths and gun crime when it comes to a topic for that reason.

In addition, much has been agreed upon by both parties and put into place.  This has been told to those who keep bringing it up to muddy the waters in a gun discussion, but the cycle continues.

Now if you want a topic on DUI checkpoints and their constitutionality, you may get a few replies as people don't agree on that as easily.

I think a lot of the difference is that we ALL agree that drinking and driving is generally bad for society.  It serves no good purpose other than convenience of not getting an Uber.  To make laws against it does not effect any one disproportionately.  Its easy for us to pass these laws because of this.  No one stands up and objects that they are loosing their right to drive drunk because that is non-sense.

However, it is different with guns.  We all agree that gun violence is bad but to out right ban guns is not easy to pass because some people own guns and some don't, some find utility in guns and some don't.  Therefor it is easy for some to say "lets ban guns they serve no purpose but to kill" and others fight that and say "I find utility in owning guns and it is a protected right". 

For many in this country, predominately in the urban areas, it makes sense to the vast majority to not have guns around.  I see the logic and think that those cities or areas should be allowed to pass laws that make sense for them.  But some areas that are mostly rural should be able to maintain their rights to own and use firearms.   The way it is set up currently seems to work to me.  The position of the Feds is, you can own most firearms, but if states or cities want to limit that right they have the ability to do so.  I think most of the issue arises when states are half rural and half urban like on the west coast or Illinois.  The major cities often control the legislature and it imposes laws on the rural areas that most in that area feel are unfair and not wanted.  Not sure what the solution is there.

 

[KarmaPolice]

bingo

its a political agenda that is based on illogical and irrational fears and literally makes no reasonable sense - and that's the AR15 banning, the gun registrations and universal background checks etc

its all focusing on law abiding legal gun owners and not criminals and the end goal is what exactly ? not to stop deaths - right ?

Yeah, you still dont get it.  It's you that keeps posting stuff like "well, if we are trying to stop all death..." 

 

[-fish-]

I think a lot of the difference is that we ALL agree that drinking and driving is generally bad for society.  It serves no good purpose other than convenience of not getting an Uber.  To make laws against it does not effect any one disproportionately.  Its easy for us to pass these laws because of this.  No one stands up and objects that they are loosing their right to drive drunk because that is non-sense.

However, it is different with guns.  We all agree that gun violence is bad but to out right ban guns is not easy to pass because some people own guns and some don't, some find utility in guns and some don't.  Therefor it is easy for some to say "lets ban guns they serve no purpose but to kill" and others fight that and say "I find utility in owning guns and it is a protected right". 

For many in this country, predominately in the urban areas, it makes sense to the vast majority to not have guns around.  I see the logic and think that those cities or areas should be allowed to pass laws that make sense for them.  But some areas that are mostly rural should be able to maintain their rights to own and use firearms.   The way it is set up currently seems to work to me.  The position of the Feds is, you can own most firearms, but if states or cities want to limit that right they have the ability to do so.  I think most of the issue arises when states are half rural and half urban like on the west coast or Illinois.  The major cities often control the legislature and it imposes laws on the rural areas that most in that area feel are unfair and not wanted.  Not sure what the solution is there.

Thank you for bringing a reasonable perspective into this discussion.   I'm not going to get into the DUI thing, because it simply isn't analogous at all.   

I think you're misstating the "let's ban guns that serve no purpose but to kill" position.    Yes, after every mass shooting with an AR15 or something similar, there is a recognition that such guns really have no place in the hands of citizens.  They aren't necessary for hunting, sport shooting or common home defense.   It's just never necessary for an ordinary citizen to fire off 30 rounds or more per second, so why do we allow such guns at all?   That leads to the inevitable NRA talking point of "handguns cause more deaths, so why would you ban something so rarely used in gun violence?"     The answer is that because these guns are so obviously outside of constitutional protection, we can regulate them, and even ban them.   So let's do it, before we can't.   The NRA already argues that they have become so common that they should be treated like handguns, and nearly impossible to regulate.

 Unfortunately, we are where we are because of Supreme Court decisions that have eliminated half of the words in the second amendment, and which really only allow meaningful regulation of guns that aren't in common use for the defense of one's home (something not found anywhere in the constitution).   So the only path to gun regulation, other than revising the second amendment, is to regulate everything up to the untouchable handgun.   That means regulating where guns can be carried, limiting capacity, prohibiting ownership by felons and others who, for whatever reason, we have deemed should not have an unfettered constitutional right to gun possession.   It means requiring safe storage, criminalizing irresponsible gun ownership, and making it more difficult to purchase and transfer guns.   

It's a horribly broken and inefficient way to do things.   Of course it's going to lead to gun advocates arguing that these laws don't make sense--because in many ways, they don't.   We've created a situation where there is a problem, but we can't address it directly.   Legislating all around it creates inefficient and sometimes unenforceable laws.  But we've seen the gun violence that results from a lack of regulation and from literally allowing the NRA to write our gun laws.  

People are tired of seeing dead kids.   People are tired of their kids having to practice not being murdered at school.    And people are becoming more and more educated that guns in the hands of citizens don't stop crime; they make it worse.    As society becomes more global, it's more clear all of the time that our gun culture is an anomaly and an anachronism.  It's not the old west anymore.  It's time to grow up.

 

[OrtonToOlsen]

Can't even trust cops with guns

 

[abbottjamesr]

Thank you for bringing a reasonable perspective into this discussion.   I'm not going to get into the DUI thing, because it simply isn't analogous at all.   

I think you're misstating the "let's ban guns that serve no purpose but to kill" position.    Yes, after every mass shooting with an AR15 or something similar, there is a recognition that such guns really have no place in the hands of citizens.  They aren't necessary for hunting, sport shooting or common home defense.   It's just never necessary for an ordinary citizen to fire off 30 rounds or more per second, so why do we allow such guns at all?   That leads to the inevitable NRA talking point of "handguns cause more deaths, so why would you ban something so rarely used in gun violence?"     The answer is that because these guns are so obviously outside of constitutional protection, we can regulate them, and even ban them.   So let's do it, before we can't.   The NRA already argues that they have become so common that they should be treated like handguns, and nearly impossible to regulate.

 Unfortunately, we are where we are because of Supreme Court decisions that have eliminated half of the words in the second amendment, and which really only allow meaningful regulation of guns that aren't in common use for the defense of one's home (something not found anywhere in the constitution).   So the only path to gun regulation, other than revising the second amendment, is to regulate everything up to the untouchable handgun.   That means regulating where guns can be carried, limiting capacity, prohibiting ownership by felons and others who, for whatever reason, we have deemed should not have an unfettered constitutional right to gun possession.   It means requiring safe storage, criminalizing irresponsible gun ownership, and making it more difficult to purchase and transfer guns.   

It's a horribly broken and inefficient way to do things.   Of course it's going to lead to gun advocates arguing that these laws don't make sense--because in many ways, they don't.   We've created a situation where there is a problem, but we can't address it directly.   Legislating all around it creates inefficient and sometimes unenforceable laws.  But we've seen the gun violence that results from a lack of regulation and from literally allowing the NRA to write our gun laws.  

People are tired of seeing dead kids.   People are tired of their kids having to practice not being murdered at school.    And people are becoming more and more educated that guns don't stop crime; they make it worse.    As society becomes more global, it's more clear all of the time that our gun culture is an anomaly and an anachronism.  It's not the old west anymore.  It's time to grow up.

Lots of good stuff in there.  I'm not sure how to address it all in order so I'm will instead address it another way while trying to not talk past you.

I agree that how we are trying to solve gun violence is not the best way.  Making these small changes to the laws that limit certain aspects of the firearm to limit there effectiveness but still allow a gun are pointless but the only way we have found to do it so far.  

America does have a "gun culture"  but this I think stems for the greater culture in America of personal independence and personal freedoms that started at the founding of the country.  The west was settle by independent people that left civilization to set a new path and start fresh in a new place.  Over a couple hundred years this as evolved to changed of course, but many of our laws and customs retain this feeling that people have the right to protect their house and do what they please on their own land.   The constitution was also written following a revolutionary war were common folks with their own guns defeated the most powerful army in the world.  The founding fathers were cautious of giving all the power to a central govt and provided protections in the constitution to protect the people.

Times seem very different now, but there are many who still distrust strong central govt's and still value their independence.  In urban areas many people have grown accustom to having to live in a more communal way and give up some personal liberties in order to coexist with several million other people living in close proximity.  For many of us, we do not make such accommodations and we still value autonomy and independence.  Part of that is feeling secure in your house as well as in public.  

As far as AR15's go and their place in society... Guns serve many purposes to people.  Some are used for hunting deer, some hunting hogs, some hunting birds, some for personal defense, some are small for convenience of carrying.  I have a couple of AR15 platform rifles, they serve different purposes.  The long barrel .556 AR is great for varmits and coyote's.  It's range is good to 500 yards and is effective on small game.  I have a AR15 pistol chambered in 300 AAC.  It is great for deer and hogs and home defense.  It is easy to suppress so that I don't go deaf if I have to shoot it in the house.  There are lots of different guns for lots of different purposes. Society may be getting more global but many of us in America live in rural areas were guns are just part of life.  They are not good or bad, they are just a tool that people grow up around.  They learn to use them and treat them with respect and they serve their purpose. 

People are going to do bad things to other people, this has been the way for as long as people have lived together.  As more people live in close confines the amount of violence is likely to increase.  I agree that in large metro areas limiting guns makes some sense to limit the impact of people who want to hurt others.  How we do this should be up to the citizens of those areas.  Banning guns or imposing restrictions should not be done on a national level in my opinion.  Much of America is still the old west.

 

[Dedfin]

This.

https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/751923-if-you-were-going-to-buy-a-new-gun-what-would-you-get/?do=findComment&comment=21692941

Nice

 

[Henry Ford]

Nice

And I just received notification from UPS that 500 .38 special rounds were delivered to my house and left on my doorstep. 

 

[Stealthycat]

First point- hey I was just trying to help.  Do what you feel you need.  

Second- guns are weapons of killing.  Plain and simple. That’s what they were designed and built for. There is no way of getting around this.  Like grenades or bombs you can train all the safety you want with regards to handling them it will still never take away there intended purpose.  Hammers were designed to drive nails, knives to cut things, cars to transport people and pillows to lay your head on.  These, as you so like to pride yourself on relying on, are facts.  

I appreciate that, and I can be a very coddling, loving poster who strokes people's feelings etc .......I never liked doing it so I am straight to point and no sugar coating and nobody confuses my views I hope.

I guess if you want to see guns as that. I don't view my guns as a killing thing. Its a tool - nothing more, nothing less and when a tool that wasn't designed to kill things (like knives) are used to kill more people every year than AR15's (which in your view was designed to kill) ........... what does that tell us ?

The problem isn't the weapon used?

 

[-fish-]

And I just received notification from UPS that 500 .38 special rounds were delivered to my house and left on my doorstep. 

sounds safe.

 

[Stealthycat]

To whom? 

the threat is what it is

 

[Henry Ford]

sounds safe.

Totally. 

I'm going to run home and get it, obviously, but it's perfectly legal for me to leave it sitting there.  You don't need even need a signature to order thousands of rounds of ammunition for delivery to your home.  It's crazy.

 

[Stealthycat]

For many in this country, predominately in the urban areas, it makes sense to the vast majority to not have guns around.  I see the logic and think that those cities or areas should be allowed to pass laws that make sense for them.

Constitution doesn't matter then ?

 

[Henry Ford]

the threat is what it is

No it isn't.  I'm a gigantic threat to anyone who enters my home illegally.  With a video doorbell that notifies me if someone's on my property and a .357 magnum.  I'm way more of a threat with the gun than with prescriptions, knives, and a car in that case.

I'm much less of a threat to my neighbors, though it's still possible I screw up and put a round through a wall and kill one of them some day.  The car is more of a threat to them, but the knives and prescriptions are no threat to them.

 

[Henry Ford]

Constitution doesn't matter then ?

Did it matter in the old west when you had to check your gun with the sheriff when you crossed the city limit?

 

[Stealthycat]

Yes, after every mass shooting with an AR15 or something similar, there is a recognition that such guns really have no place in the hands of citizens.

out of the 15 million AR15's in the USA, how many were used wrongly and illegally last week. Count them

Now, how many were used CORRECTLY - as in shooting sports, home defense, NOT illegally etc?

99.999 % of them or more ?

 

[Stealthycat]

Can't even trust cops with guns

was that gun registered ? how did that happen then ?

 

[Stealthycat]

No it isn't.  I'm a gigantic threat to anyone who enters my home illegally.  With a video doorbell that notifies me if someone's on my property and a .357 magnum.  I'm way more of a threat with the gun than with prescriptions, knives, and a car in that case.

I'm much less of a threat to my neighbors, though it's still possible I screw up and put a round through a wall and kill one of them some day.  The car is more of a threat to them, but the knives and prescriptions are no threat to them.

If a person wants to enter your home illegally and they view you as no threat ........... does that change the fact that you are in fact a threat? no - the threat remains doesn't it?

 

[OrtonToOlsen]

Did it matter in the old west when you had to check your gun with the sheriff when you crossed the city limit?

We don't want any trouble in here. Not in any language.

 

[Stealthycat]

Did it matter in the old west when you had to check your gun with the sheriff when you crossed the city limit?

can't comment on things that happened 150 years ago that I really don't have that great a knowledge about.  I suspect had the ACLU exists and the NRA and well versed lawyers yes, it would have mattered a lot

 

[dkp993]

We don't want any trouble in here. Not in any language.

I’m your Huckleberry

 

[Henry Ford]

If a person wants to enter your home illegally and they view you as no threat ........... does that change the fact that you are in fact a threat? no - the threat remains doesn't it?

I don't have any idea what you mean in this.

My point is that the type of threat I am to people is different based on that person.

 

[Stealthycat]

school security - what a great job done it appears !

A 25-year-old gunman shot a staff member at a Baltimore high school on Friday, authorities said. The suspect was taken into custody and the school was placed on lockdown.

Police said a 56-year-old hall monitor confronted the gunman in the school's entrance. A confrontation ensued, and the gunman shot the older man. The victim is in serious but stable condition at a local hospital, police said. 

The suspect was apprehended by police within minutes. Police said he did not make it into the school before his arrest.

 

[OrtonToOlsen]

school security - what a great job done it appears !

A 25-year-old gunman shot a staff member at a Baltimore high school on Friday, authorities said. The suspect was taken into custody and the school was placed on lockdown.

Police said a 56-year-old hall monitor confronted the gunman in the school's entrance. A confrontation ensued, and the gunman shot the older man. The victim is in serious but stable condition at a local hospital, police said. 

The suspect was apprehended by police within minutes. Police said he did not make it into the school before his arrest.

Wait, what?

 

[Henry Ford]

school security - what a great job done it appears !

A 25-year-old gunman shot a staff member at a Baltimore high school on Friday, authorities said. The suspect was taken into custody and the school was placed on lockdown.

Police said a 56-year-old hall monitor confronted the gunman in the school's entrance. A confrontation ensued, and the gunman shot the older man. The victim is in serious but stable condition at a local hospital, police said. 

The suspect was apprehended by police within minutes. Police said he did not make it into the school before his arrest.

...in a city where school resource officers are not even allowed to carry guns on campus.

 

[Stealthycat]

I don't have any idea what you mean in this.

My point is that the type of threat I am to people is different based on that person.

I disagree 100%

are you afraid of snakes? lets say you are. I am not - I have no fear of them

we see a kingsnake and you go bonkers because hey, you're afraid of snakes right? that snake gonna get you, big fangs etc right? 

me? I run over, catch it and handle it before letting it go

Two very different reactions and perceptions of threat right?   But that snake in reality posed NO more threat to you than me, correct ?

 

[Stealthycat]

...in a city where school resource officers are not even allowed to carry guns on campus.

I dunno - is that the law there?

 

[-fish-]

can't comment on things that happened 150 years ago that I really don't have that great a knowledge about.  I suspect had the ACLU exists and the NRA and well versed lawyers yes, it would have mattered a lot

but you want to blindly rely on a document written 230 years ago that you don't have much knowledge about.   

 

[Henry Ford]

I disagree 100%

are you afraid of snakes? lets say you are. I am not - I have no fear of them

we see a kingsnake and you go bonkers because hey, you're afraid of snakes right? that snake gonna get you, big fangs etc right? 

me? I run over, catch it and handle it before letting it go

Two very different reactions and perceptions of threat right?   But that snake in reality posed NO more threat to you than me, correct ?

Well, I'm not.  I've killed rattlesnakes with a shovel as a kid.  But there's a difference between perception of threat and actual threat.  I'm actually a bigger threat to intruders with my gun than I am to intruders with my car. I'm actually more of a threat to my neighbors with my car than I am with my gun.

 

[Henry Ford]

I dunno - is that the law there?

Yes.

 

[Stealthycat]

Sources told the 11 News I-Team that the suspect went to the school looking for the 56-year-old victim described by students as a coach. The suspect's relative, a Frederick Douglass student, apparently had a prior encounter with the victim. Sources told the I-Team that a parent-teacher conference was going on Friday involving the suspect's relative.

Clyde Boatwright, the president of the Baltimore City School Police officers union, said the shooting makes their case that city school police officers should be armed. The school board recently voted to oppose House Bill 31, which would allow city school police officers to carry guns in the buildings.

"My officers, it was a fight. To quote one of my officers, 'I thought I had to shoot him,'" Boatwright said. "How does that 10-0 vote look now? When you had an unarmed police officer inside the school who, thankfully, had his supervisors with him at a conference, when they heard gunshots inside the building and they were able to quickly fight a suspect who was shooting in a Baltimore City school."

Boatwright said the school police supervisors were armed.

 

[OrtonToOlsen]

can't comment on things that happened 150 years ago that I really don't have that great a knowledge about.  I suspect had the ACLU exists and the NRA and well versed lawyers yes, it would have mattered a lot

yes because for 40-50 years the country has painted it to be a symbol of hate - its been used by white supremacists and racists yes it has, so has the American flag.

from the end of the civil war until the early 1900's it wasn't so much so

I submit that if a flag of the Confederacy that lived for what, 4 years? and supported slavery being legal is hate, then the flag that flew for from the moment the United States became a country and the supporting of slavery, until slavery ended ... that flag too is as much a symbol of hate is it not ?

I suppose you could say that that all is forgiven since the US flag / country righted the wrong, but then too you could say that the Confederacy was already changing with the Confederate Constitution and the wording of slaves not being bought/sold from outside the Confederacy (much like the US constitution at that time)

confederate flag flew for 5 years with legalized slavery  1861-1865

US flag flew for  89 years with legalized slavery   1776-1865

If someone sees the Confederate flag as hurtful I imagine the American Flag crushes them completely. What flag flew when all the slaves were brought over and sold? US Flag. What flag flew for 3-4 generations of blacks born into slavery in the US? US Flag. What flags flew during the civil war that allowed slavery? oh ... both the confederate AND the US flags. 

historically Democrats have always been the racists - fact

wow - you cannot believe the above .... I mean like, its historically inaccurate

plantation owners - Demcorats

Jim Crow's of the day - Democrats

Gov of Arkansas and the Little Rock 9 incident - Democrat

Democrats voted against every piece of civil rights legislation in Congress from 1866 to 1966 – a whopping 100 years.....

 

[-fish-]

facts, schmacts.

 

[dkp993]

I disagree 100%

are you afraid of snakes? lets say you are. I am not - I have no fear of them

we see a kingsnake and you go bonkers because hey, you're afraid of snakes right? that snake gonna get you, big fangs etc right? 

me? I run over, catch it and handle it before letting it go

Two very different reactions and perceptions of threat right?   But that snake in reality posed NO more threat to you than me, correct ?

Afraid of snakes? No. Afraid of a trip to the racquetball court so I need to carry a gun? Yes.  

 

[KCitons]

The answer to both is pretty simple - people see a bunch of  kids getting shot in school or people getting shot at church or a concert and it's a bridge too far.   You know why there is increase traffic after a school shooting, and I would think that would be expected.   I don't know what you are getting at with the last statement - people have expressed multiple times that they are for stricter laws in your other thread and why a school shooting would set them off.   What is your point? 

Does this mean a family of 5 on their way to Disney World, dying due to a drunk driver, is not a bridge too far?

What exactly is the difference between the kids that are getting shot, and the kids that are dying in a fiery crash?

 

[KCitons]

So are you claiming that guns were designed for something other than killing things, but just happen to be used that way today?

The only way the bolded holds any relevance is if you are against guns for any purpose. Lots of guns are purchased with no intent of hurting a person. They are used for hunting or target shooting. It would be no different from saying a car is purchased to kill people. Only because we know they have been used that way in the past.

 

[KCitons]

That is not the goal, and you have been told that a multiple times.  

False. 270 pages refute your statement.

 

[KCitons]

There's more traffic after a mass shooting because this is a thread about mass shootings.  

Then why was there so much discussion about suicide?

 

[KCitons]

but you want to blindly rely on a document written 230 years ago that you don't have much knowledge about.   

Would that be the same document we use to protect things like freedom of speech and freedom of press?

You're really comparing the regulations of old west towns to the U.S. Constitution? (and you're a lawyer?)

 

[KarmaPolice]

False. 270 pages refute your statement.

Is there a post in any of those 270 pages stating that they want to stop all deaths? 

 

[KarmaPolice]

The only way the bolded holds any relevance is if you are against guns for any purpose. Lots of guns are purchased with no intent of hurting a person. They are used for hunting or target shooting. It would be no different from saying a car is purchased to kill people. Only because we know they have been used that way in the past.

There is a difference in my and others opinion.  It's ok to disagree.  

I dont think guns were invented for target practice and sport shooting.  I also think SC's position (and I guess your's, or why are you arguing?)  that a gun is the same as a hammer, shovel, or any other tool is way off base. 

 

[KCitons]

There is a difference in my and others opinion.  It's ok to disagree.  

I dont think guns were invented for target practice and sport shooting.  I also think SC's position (and I guess your's, or why are you arguing?)  that a gun is the same as a hammer, shovel, or any other tool is way off base. 

Invention is different than purpose. There are guns that are created for different uses. We've been over this before. The only way your argument holds water is if you believe all guns are purchased for the purpose of killing. And more importantly, the purpose of killing people. Cars are not purchased for the intent of killing people. When used improperly, recklessly, or with intent to do harm, they are deadly as well.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Does this mean a family of 5 on their way to Disney World, dying due to a drunk driver, is not a bridge too far?

What exactly is the difference between the kids that are getting shot, and the kids that are dying in a fiery crash?

Been over this too. 

 

[KarmaPolice]

Invention is different than purpose. There are guns that are created for different uses. We've been over this before. The only way your argument holds water is if you believe all guns are purchased for the purpose of killing. And more importantly, the purpose of killing people. Cars are not purchased for the intent of killing people. When used improperly, recklessly, or with intent to do harm, they are deadly as 

I would guess that guns bought for protection and hunting are done so because they can kill something.  I would also guess those are the majority of types of guns bought/reason they are bought.  

 

[KarmaPolice]

Oh, and we know what we are all talking about in here, so don't post about paint guns and squirt guns. 

 

[KCitons]

I would guess that guns bought for protection and hunting are done so because they can kill something.  I would also guess those are the majority of types of guns bought/reason they are bought.  

Does that mean you are against hunting? You admit that those guns are bought to kill something. That something is animals. Not people. I know you guys hate the comparison, but this is counter to the argument about banning alcohol because of drunk drivers. I've been told numerous times that the intent of drunk drivers is not to kill someone. If the intent of buying a gun is not to kill people, then what is the different when either causes unintentional deaths?

 

[KarmaPolice]

Does that mean you are against hunting? You admit that those guns are bought to kill something. That something is animals. Not people. I know you guys hate the comparison, but this is counter to the argument about banning alcohol because of drunk drivers. I've been told numerous times that the intent of drunk drivers is not to kill someone. If the intent of buying a gun is not to kill people, then what is the different when either causes unintentional deaths?

Not remotely what I said, but I finally starting to understand why so many people have you on ignore. 

 

[KCitons]

Not remotely what I said, but I finally starting to understand why so many people have you on ignore. 

This is pointless. 

How can you admit that a lot of guns are purchased for hunting, and therefore, not intent on hurting people. But want to limit those guns through regulations. You glossed over the rest of that post. Concentrating instead on the sarcastic comment in the first seven words. 

 

[the rover]

Not remotely what I said, but I finally starting to understand why so many people have you on ignore. 

Dude, when he starts doing the cars/dui thing send him to his thread.  He’s a troll.  His goal is to derail useful conversation.

 

[KCitons]

Dude, when he starts doing the cars/dui thing send him to his thread.  He’s a troll.  His goal is to derail useful conversation.

Right. Because we wouldn't want any conversation that thinks outside the box. 

You guys are afraid of any approach that shows faults in your thinking. It's comical. 

 

[dkp993]

Right. Because we wouldn't want any conversation that thinks outside the box. 

You guys are afraid of any approach that shows faults in your thinking. It's comical. 

For the record in my opinion you’re not a troll at all and I believe you truly feel the way you say here. But also for the record your second sentence applies as much to you as you think it applies to others.  You’re as close minded on this and stubborn in your beliefs as those you’re arguing with.  I’m sure you’ll argue with me you’re not and your thoughts are valid, backed by reason and that you’re really open minded but your arguments are shaped and cut to fit your desire (keep your guns) not from a neutral position of trying to figure out “what’s right” ( whatever that is cuz I sure don’t know).  All just my opinion of course.