Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

USA Shootings


randall146

Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, -fish- said:

It sucks.  It sucks when my daughter has to practice not getting murdered once a month.  It sucks explaining why we as a country refuse to stop it, and why politicians are corrupt and cowardly.  It sucks that she realizes that most people have guns for no purpose other than recreation, and that’s more important than the lives of her and her classmates.

it does suck, I agree

its time to stop these people and make schools safe, please for the love of God get behind that and make it happen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

We want to make it more difficult for people to obtain weapons to kill mass numbers of people.

we already make it difficult

they find a way anyway..... and when they do, you better hope a good guy with a gun stops them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, sho nuff said:

And logic alludes you as well.

This has been said over and over and over again...nobody is outbclaiming we can stop all mass shootings.  We want to make it more difficult for people to obtain weapons to kill mass numbers of people.

We want more layers to catch a person before it happens.  To lessen the damage they can inflict.

Amd talking about those measures does not ignore other issues of mental health and so on...those things are being advocated for as well.  It’s not an either/or situation.  Solutions to both are needed.

*eludes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

send me a PM and I'll have my FFL guy send your FFL guy the information and you can ship to me, k ?

I'll help you become gun free

If you think I’d put another gun in your hands, you’re sorely mistaken. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

the leading cause is people killing other people

can we please, please ban that ?

 

you were wanting to talk about how brave people were to go to school - a places less likely to die than many other places and things we do in life. Schools are very very safe overall, don't make it look like a killing field, it isn't. It DOES need to stop, absolutely. But over dramatizing things to try and make a point is easily seen by everyone and doesn't help the anti-gun cause

When my kids are in the car, I buckle them up.  I want other drivers on the road to be safe, and not drunk.  I put them in carseats, although I haven't been in a wreck in decades.

When I feed my kids, I do my best to give them food that's good for them that is also safe.  I know of no one whose kids have died from eating bad food, although some are on a path to unhealthiness.

When I buy clothes for my kids, I try to make sure that I'm doing this responsibly and not buying things that could potentially cause harm to them.

When my kids are outside, I watch them to make sure nothing bad happens.  What are the odds of something bad happening to them?

When my kids are in the parking lot or near a street, I am with them to steer them away from trouble.  I don't personally know anyone who was hit in a parking lot, but that wont' stop me from being aware and concerned.

None of those situations are high probability situations for them being harmed, yet as a parent I'm interested in reducing the chances that my kids will suffer harm.

So why, again, are you trying to talk me out of caring that across America, school children are dying when other folks bring guns into their school, when in every other area of my kids life I'm doing my best to reduce their risk of death? 

You suggest I shouldn't care about school murders because heart disease is a bigger killer of americans of all ages?

Have you completely and utterly lost perspective?  I'm not saying it's my primary concern as a parent, but it's certainly a concern.

Edited by adonis
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stealthycat said:

how do you determine who you can and cannot sell to ?

can you trade and barter? give them ? I mean I'm not against that line of thought, its just impossible to impose it and does nothing to help people taking/stealing guns

 

BTW - it looks like the two campus officers did confront the shooter

Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas said two police officers had been on the campus at the time at the attack — as envisioned by the school’s safety plan — and that they were “able to confront the shooter early on in the process.”

Yep, and people died. Maybe we should limit access to guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

the liberal mind cannot understand that

ban ban ban ban ban ban ban

you see the mentality right here - its was for 100 pages ban AR15's and high cap magazines and bump stocks - do that the left says, they don't want to ban all guns

yesterday a 17 year old wacko kills with a shotgun and now its ban all semi-auto guns

tomorrow, a person uses a single shot to kill 25 kids and they'll demand all single shots banned

its a progression and every time, its ban something else and totally ignore the core problem

 

I mean look, its simple here. For 100's of years every house pretty much had guns. Kids had access to guns, easy access. In the 1940's kids too guns to school in many places. In 1980's we STILL took guns to school in our trucks in rural America. More guns were in homes then than now.

If guns were the problem why wasn't kids killing kids and people killing kids back then ?

 

There has been a massive spike in the last 20 years - and the more restrictions on guns are not doing a damn thing because the type of weapon is NOT the problem ! These people are the problem

 

 

 

Why is it a one thing or the other solution? We obviously have a huge mental health issue going on that needs to be addressed. We have poor security at our schools  that needs to be addressed. And we have easy access to the biggest killing machines that can easily cause mass tragedy that needs to be addressed. 

Any sober analysis of the situation shows you the only path to rolling back the increasing levels of gun violence needs to be a multi pronged approach. Are you going to eliminate all gun violence? No, unfortunately that's pretty much impossible. But you can help limit the potential of mass tragedy with common sense gun control, starting with banning assault weapons, required background checks, etc. Anyone standing in the way of these measures should be ashamed of themselves. Organizations like the NRA who claim only to care about your rights really only care about enriching themselves and the gun manufacturers. They have blood on their hands. It's simply not right and it should be called out as such.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stealthycat said:

the liberal mind cannot understand that

ban ban ban ban ban ban ban

you see the mentality right here - its was for 100 pages ban AR15's and high cap magazines and bump stocks - do that the left says, they don't want to ban all guns

yesterday a 17 year old wacko kills with a shotgun and now its ban all semi-auto guns

tomorrow, a person uses a single shot to kill 25 kids and they'll demand all single shots banned

its a progression and every time, its ban something else and totally ignore the core problem

 

I mean look, its simple here. For 100's of years every house pretty much had guns. Kids had access to guns, easy access. In the 1940's kids too guns to school in many places. In 1980's we STILL took guns to school in our trucks in rural America. More guns were in homes then than now.

If guns were the problem why wasn't kids killing kids and people killing kids back then ?

 

There has been a massive spike in the last 20 years - and the more restrictions on guns are not doing a damn thing because the type of weapon is NOT the problem ! These people are the problem

 

 

 

You’re right. I’ve been for reasonable gun reform, but some kid with a shotgun and handgun can still do a lot of damage. No more guns? License to own guns, and only for hunting? Whatever gun reform may come through, I don’t care if it goes too far now if it does something. If the first thing I could vote on repealed gun rights entirely I’d vote yes at this point. Better than doing nothing and having more dead kids.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stealthycat said:

the liberal mind cannot understand that

ban ban ban ban ban ban ban

you see the mentality right here - its was for 100 pages ban AR15's and high cap magazines and bump stocks - do that the left says, they don't want to ban all guns

yesterday a 17 year old wacko kills with a shotgun and now its ban all semi-auto guns

tomorrow, a person uses a single shot to kill 25 kids and they'll demand all single shots banned

its a progression and every time, its ban something else and totally ignore the core problem

 

I mean look, its simple here. For 100's of years every house pretty much had guns. Kids had access to guns, easy access. In the 1940's kids too guns to school in many places. In 1980's we STILL took guns to school in our trucks in rural America. More guns were in homes then than now.

If guns were the problem why wasn't kids killing kids and people killing kids back then ?

 

There has been a massive spike in the last 20 years - and the more restrictions on guns are not doing a damn thing because the type of weapon is NOT the problem ! These people are the problem

I am with you.  The fewer people the better.

Any thoughts on how we bring the population back to 1940's levels?  Is that why you advocate for more guns?  I am starting to see the logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, timschochet said:

Sure, but it’s not me or any rhetorical argument on my part that made it all or nothing. 

Its the Republicans. 

They refuse to lift a finger on this issue. Because of their allegiance to the NRA (or fear of it) they will not agree even to have a vote on a single gun control measure. Even bump stocks, which the NRA said after Las Vegas that they might not be averse to banning, are still legal as I write this, bevause the GOP won’t bring it to a vote. They won’t discuss this issue period. 

So I can’t see a solution other than to vote Democrat. You may not like it. I don’t like it, because I detest the idea of being a one issue voter. But I don’t see an alternative. 

Do I have to continue to vote Democrat after the ban? Wouldn't there be a risk of overturning at some point? Seems to me I'm stuck with one party for a long time, regardless of other issues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Bruce Dickinson said:

I don’t speak for everyone here, but I’m going to go out on a limb and say taking away guns would go a long way towards reducing the number of school shootings.  

Countries around the world that have reduced access to guns have had a lot of success reducing mass killings.  

And I'm going to go out on a limb and say taking away alcohol would go a long way towards reducing the number of DUI deaths. 

Why is one ban more important than the other to you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Do I have to continue to vote Democrat after the ban? Wouldn't there be a risk of overturning at some point? Seems to me I'm stuck with one party for a long time, regardless of other issues.

Not at all. As has been pointed out several times, this is a bipartisan issue. There are lots of Republicans willing to vote for reasonable gun control proposals but the leadership is unwilling to put these bills up to a vote. So we need to remove that leadership and put the Dems in charge: that will break the dam. Once that’s been accomplished, it’s a whole new ball game. Republicans will be free of the NRA stranglehold and it will be safe to vote GOP again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, -fish- said:

Please explain how every civilized nation putting tighter restrictions on guns has resulted in less gun violence.  Is that a coincidence?  You want to stop gun violence?  Reduce the availability of guns violent people.  It’s not that hard to understand, and it doesn’t rely on any false equivalency or logical fallacy. Guns are, in fact, the leading problem in the issue of gun violence. 

If you remove the guns from gun violence, what are you left with?

 

And I'll save you another post. I'm a troll. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, KCitons said:

And I'm going to go out on a limb and say taking away alcohol would go a long way towards reducing the number of DUI deaths. 

Why is one ban more important than the other to you?

At this single point in time I have to say that the most important ban of all to me personally is one for bad analogies. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, timschochet said:

Not at all. As has been pointed out several times, this is a bipartisan issue. There are lots of Republicans willing to vote for reasonable gun control proposals but the leadership is unwilling to put these bills up to a vote. So we need to remove that leadership and put the Dems in charge: that will break the dam. Once that’s been accomplished, it’s a whole new ball game. Republicans will be free of the NRA stranglehold and it will be safe to vote GOP again. 

As some have mentioned, Ryan is the one that is refusing to bring those laws to a vote. How is the Speaker of the House elected? Do I have a say in who that is or isn't?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, timschochet said:

At this single point in time I have to say that the most important ban of all to me personally is one for bad analogies. 

Which way are you going to vote to effect that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, KCitons said:

So violent people won't find other ways to act violently?

 

:shrug:

 

Lets try this another way:  Would you be OK with a fully automatic machine-gun for every person over the age of, say 16?

 

ETA:  This really should just be a simple yes or no.

Edited by Sinn Fein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, KCitons said:

So violent people won't find other ways to act violently?

So why make it easy for violent people to get their hands on tools that help them maximize their violence? How is that logical?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Juxtatarot said:

Yes you do. But indirectly.

You mean the way I have voted for politicians based on a running platform, only to be disappointed after they take office. 

I've just come to the conclusion that they are all liars in order to get elected. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, KCitons said:

As some have mentioned, Ryan is the one that is refusing to bring those laws to a vote. How is the Speaker of the House elected? Do I have a say in who that is or isn't?

In a way you do. 

Ryan is not the problem; any GOP speaker will behave the same on this issue. You can help to get a Democratic speaker by voting for a Democrat as your congressperson and by contributing money and/or time to other Democratic Congress people with a chance to overturn the House. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, cap'n grunge said:

So why make it easy for violent people to get their hands on tools that help them maximize their violence? How is that logical?

Because I think it would be more effective to correct the problem with the person instead of taking away ever tool that they could use to carry out violent acts. 

I had no idea you could make a bomb out of a pressure cooker until the Boston bombing. I haven't looked, but I would venture to guess that there are dozens of other ways that someone could carry out horrible acts. I get the let's try banning guns and see what happens. Of course it would reduce mass shooting (eventually). But what do you do when those same people start using pressure cookers. Do you ban those as well. In the end all you did was take guns and pressure cookers away from law abiding citizens. You're still left with the violent person. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, KCitons said:

And I'm going to go out on a limb and say taking away alcohol would go a long way towards reducing the number of DUI deaths. 

Why is one ban more important than the other to you?

Are you comparing banning alcohol completely vs. changes in gun control laws? Almost all here aren’t for a complete ban on all guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, KCitons said:

As some have mentioned, Ryan is the one that is refusing to bring those laws to a vote. How is the Speaker of the House elected? Do I have a say in who that is or isn't?

If there were less shootings perhaps teachers could concentrate on teaching.

That way we don't have adults walking around who don't know basic things about their system of government.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, thayman said:

If there were less shootings perhaps teachers could concentrate on teaching.

That way we don't have adults walking around who don't know basic things about their system of government.

What exactly are they concentrating on when it comes to shootings?

I went to a Catholic school for 12 years and always said that I wasted 20% of my education on mandatory religion classes and weekly mass. While other kids spent that same time learning other things that may help them in life. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:

Are you comparing banning alcohol completely vs. changes in gun control laws? Almost all here aren’t for a complete ban on all guns.

That number grows with each shooting. Are alcohol laws making any changes to the number of DUI deaths in the last 5 years?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Because I think it would be more effective to correct the problem with the person instead of taking away ever tool that they could use to carry out violent acts. 

I had no idea you could make a bomb out of a pressure cooker until the Boston bombing. I haven't looked, but I would venture to guess that there are dozens of other ways that someone could carry out horrible acts. I get the let's try banning guns and see what happens. Of course it would reduce mass shooting (eventually). But what do you do when those same people start using pressure cookers. Do you ban those as well. In the end all you did was take guns and pressure cookers away from law abiding citizens. You're still left with the violent person. 

How many people died in the Boston Marathon bombing? How many people die in these shootings?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, KCitons said:

That number grows with each shooting. Are alcohol laws making any changes to the number of DUI deaths in the last 5 years?

I would say yes. If there were no laws at all there would be more. No way to prove that though I don’t think. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, KCitons said:

That number grows with each shooting. Are alcohol laws making any changes to the number of DUI deaths in the last 5 years?

I don’t know. Maybe a little? Changes in the law about alcohol have been minor over the last five years. I don’t understand why you are asking.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:

I don’t know. Maybe a little? Changes in the law about alcohol have been minor over the last five years. I don’t understand why you are asking.

Because he’s a troll 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, NREC34 said:

I would say yes. If there were no laws at all there would be more. No way to prove that though I don’t think. 

 

9 minutes ago, Juxtatarot said:

I don’t know. Maybe a little? Changes in the law about alcohol have been minor over the last five years. I don’t understand why you are asking.

Numbers have flat lined at 10k per year. This is acceptable to society. We've educated, increased penalties, made cars safer, but the numbers remain the same. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, timschochet said:

In a way you do. 

Ryan is not the problem; any GOP speaker will behave the same on this issue. You can help to get a Democratic speaker by voting for a Democrat as your congressperson and by contributing money and/or time to other Democratic Congress people with a chance to overturn the House. 

Not every Speaker has been a spineless weasel like Ryan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, KCitons said:

What does this post make you?

A public servant, encouraging people not to engage with trolls who purposely and repeatedly attempt to change the subject of murdering children with guns to false equivalencies relating to dui’s.  I discuss facts and law, with actual statistics and using accepted tenets of logical argument.  You are a troll.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, -fish- said:

A public servant, encouraging people not to engage with trolls who purposely and repeatedly attempt to change the subject of murdering children with guns to false equivalencies relating to dui’s.  I discuss facts and law, with actual statistics and using accepted tenets of logical argument.  You are a troll.

:lmao:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, KCitons said:

 

Numbers have flat lined at 10k per year. This is acceptable to society. We've educated, increased penalties, made cars safer, but the numbers remain the same. 

Why are you looking at those numbers on such a small timeline? Over the past 35 years, DUI deaths have halved. I'm trying to understand your point.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, whoknew said:

Why are you looking at those numbers on such a small timeline? Over the past 35 years, DUI deaths have halved. I'm trying to understand your point.

Because it appears that we have accomplished all we can with the education, better autos and increased penalties. Is 10k alcohol related deaths an acceptable number? It seems as though it is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, KCitons said:

 

Numbers have flat lined at 10k per year. This is acceptable to society. We've educated, increased penalties, made cars safer, but the numbers remain the same. 

Don’t know about the numbers or if new laws have been made in the last 5 years. If all cars become driverless then I think we will go to pretty much zero though. I can see a light at the end of the tunnel. I don’t really feel the same about guns at the moment. Doesn’t however mean it’s impossible to solve and we should just accept it and quit trying!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, KCitons said:

 

Numbers have flat lined at 10k per year. This is acceptable to society. We've educated, increased penalties, made cars safer, but the numbers remain the same. 

In the last 5 years? If you go back further in time, the decline in drunk driving fatalities is significant. I think we’ll certainly get those numbers down further in time with improvements in technology. Laws can help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NREC34 said:

Don’t know about the numbers or if new laws have been made in the last 5 years. If all cars become driverless then I think we will go to pretty much zero though. I can see a light at the end of the tunnel. I don’t really feel the same about guns at the moment. Doesn’t however mean it’s impossible to solve and we should just accept it and quit trying!

How long do you think it will take before a majority of the cars are driverless? Electric cars were a great way to save on gas and save the environment. But EV's only make up a very small percentage of autos on the road. With more technology, comes higher costs. People are holding on to older cars a lot longer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, KCitons said:

Because it appears that we have accomplished all we can with the education, better autos and increased penalties. Is 10k alcohol related deaths an acceptable number? It seems as though it is. 

I mean - that's almost certainly not true. We could definitely have better education, better autos, and increased penalties to bring DUI deaths down further. I mean, we could get it to basically 0. 

So I don't understand what your point is. That we've also done everything we can in getting gun deaths down?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, whoknew said:

I mean - that's almost certainly not true. We could definitely have better education, better autos, and increased penalties to bring DUI deaths down further. I mean, we could get it to basically 0. 

So I don't understand what your point is. That we've also done everything we can in getting gun deaths down?

I don't think we can get it to zero. The penalties are getting slightly tougher, but we still have people with multiple dui's. I think most people know the potential dangers of driving drunk. 

My point is, what education have done to address gun violence? And before someone says, we don't need to have teachers spending time educating kids on guns, have you ever seen a tv or magazine commercial discussing gun violence? If we had a problem with DUI's and we didn't move to ban alcohol, but instead we educated and made things safer, why can't we take a similar approach to gun violence.

For the record, I feel that we don't do enough to address the underlying problems related to why someone drinks and drives. We punish the person, but we don't force them to correct their alcohol problems. Which is why we have repeat offenders. The same could be said for removing guns from violent people, the violent person still remains. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...