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 (5 Viewers)

randall146 said:
Under your theory we should only punish drunk drivers who get into accidents, not the 99.9% of drunk drivers who make it home without accidents.
Click to expand...
no, the crime isn't drinking and accidents, the crime is drinking and driving

how have we helped drunk driving ? banning automobiles? adding breathalyzers on all auto's that every time it starts you have to blow into it ? background checks when you buy booze ?

no - hard harsh penalties for being caught breaking the law, that has helped more than anything. Still, a person with a spotless record can stop and buy rum tonight and for whatever reason get plastered drunk and drive down the road and hit and kill someone. Do we call for banning cars? Banning alcohol?

No, the problem isn't the legal auto owners, or people drinking responsibility ... its the exceptionally few who don't pay attention to the laws.

In 2015, 10,265 people died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (29%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States. Of the 1, 1,132 traffic deaths among children ages 0 to 14 years in 2015, 209 (16%) involved an alcohol-impaired driver.Jun 16, 2017

 
Hawkeye21 said:
What I find really odd is that the definition of amendment is to make a change to a document.  Why is it that people freak out about making changes to the constitution when it's been changed numerous times over the years?  The whole purpose is for it to change along with our society.
Click to expand...
Why do you hate America?

 
timschochet said:
The killer yesterday purchased his gun legally through a background check which did not include mental health issues, and which is sorely limited in what it DOES check for. We could have made it much more difficult for this man to purchase guns. 
Click to expand...
what law would you have in place that would have stopped this guy - a law that would have raised a red flag and said wait, should he be able to buy this ?

 
How soon before nervous gun owners rush to the gun stores and buy every AR-15 on the shelf? This stupidity happens after every mass shooting. Mass shootings are tremendous business for the gun manufacturers. 

 
fatguyinalittlecoat said:
No I think we need to start with changing attitudes towards guns.  Remember when a lot of people had Zubaz pants and thought they were cool?  And then people realized they were actually really ugly and then nobody had them anymore?  We need to do that, except with guns.
Click to expand...
Ive started doing that with the pro-gun anywhere-anytime owners.

I keep tellin' them that these deaths are theirs. Directly theirs. They own it.
They aren't happy at all, but they dont have an ability to counter the argument... because based directly on their "cant have my gun" stances this stuff is going to continue.

 
Stealthycat said:
The Commish said:
100 gun control proposals since 2011. ALL failed. 
Click to expand...
were any of them meaningful ?
Click to expand...
Those links were posted as a means to illustrate that people were trying to get things changed.  There's this lazy notion running rampant among :hophead:  that just because things haven't changed doesn't mean people aren't trying to affect change.  Now....to your question.

What's the definition of "meaningful"?

 
Hawkeye21 said:
What I find really odd is that the definition of amendment is to make a change to a document.  Why is it that people freak out about making changes to the constitution when it's been changed numerous times over the years?  The whole purpose is for it to change along with our society.
Click to expand...
you are right in a way Hawkeye21, the Constitution should change on things and it has

I disagree that the 2nd amendment is one of them, guns are good, they do good things every minute of the day, they're used to stop crime, deter crime, make arrests .... guns are very very good at stopping crime, its why police carry them, its why federal buildings are protected by them, its why high Govt officials are surrounded by them (as are their kids when at school)

 
Stealthycat said:
what law would you have in place that would have stopped this guy - a law that would have raised a red flag and said wait, should he be able to buy this ?
Click to expand...
I already answered this: massive spending on mental health issues issues. Huge expansion of background checks to include mental health issues. 

I would require any purchase of a gun to be accompanied by a questionnaire that demonstrates mental fitness- the same test that military officers and law enforcement are required to take. If you fail the test, no gun purchase for you. 

 
BigSteelThrill said:
Ive started doing that with the pro-gun anywhere-anytime owners.

I keep tellin' them that these deaths are theirs. Directly theirs. They own it.
They aren't happy at all, but they dont have an ability to counter the argument... because based directly on their "cant have my gun" stances this stuff is going to continue.
Click to expand...
And how's that working towards the goal of changing their attitudes towards guns?

 
timschochet said:
I already answered this: massive spending on mental health issues issues. Huge expansion of background checks to include mental health issues. 

I would require any purchase of a gun to be accompanied by a questionnaire that demonstrates mental fitness- the same test that military officers and law enforcement are required to take. If you fail the test, no gun purchase for you. 
Click to expand...
would the above have stopped this man from buying the gun ? as far as I have read, he had no criminal background. He might very well be a sharp minded guy with a solid IQ

 
The Commish said:
I didn't claim they were.  As a matter of fact I told you exactly why they were posted and "meaning" wasn't part of the equation.  Again, what's your definition of "meaningful" in terms of gun laws?
Click to expand...
laws that stop criminals without impacting the 99.99% of legal gun owners

like drunk driving laws, pass the ones that don't impact everyone who drives the right way, don't pass laws that impact the 99.99% of drivers

 
dgreen said:
And how's that working towards the goal of changing their attitudes towards guns?
Click to expand...
The see the truth of it. The shame is self evident.

And if anything continues (50/50) we start talking about certain gun controls (like smart grips) and they start discussing the merits of many of them.  Had a boatload of those discussions yesterday. 

 
Politician Spock said:
No. And this comparison has been destroyed numerous times already. Only people with their head stuck in the sand continue to propose it. 
Click to expand...
no, its very valid

what you are saying is that the cost of people having both the ability to buy alcohol and drive automobiles is worth 10-11,000 drunk driving deaths every year

you do not support technology that would pretty much stop anyone from driving drunk by measuring their breath before the vehicle starts, or technology that wouldn't allow any car to get without 100' of any other car etc

You and I both know why - the impact on all the people driving the right way would be huge - and its simply not worth the 10-11,000 dead bodies. Isn't that the truth ?

 
Stealthycat said:
you are right in a way Hawkeye21, the Constitution should change on things and it has

I disagree that the 2nd amendment is one of them, guns are good, they do good things every minute of the day, they're used to stop crime, deter crime, make arrests .... guns are very very good at stopping crime, its why police carry them, its why federal buildings are protected by them, its why high Govt officials are surrounded by them (as are their kids when at school)
Click to expand...
You can't keep talking about the good they do and ignore the bad they do.  The bad exist and it must be acknowledged.

 
timschochet said:
It might have stopped him, particularly the questionnaire. 

We cant stop everyone, but we can make things more difficult. That’s the purpose of criminal laws. 
Click to expand...
it seems he was very determined and you do not know if such a law would have worked.

criminal laws .... he broke laws going back to the school, taking a gun on campus, shooting at people .......... what more laws did he break and you think more laws would have stopped him ?

I still believe, 100%, an armed person shooting back at him would have stopped him before anything else would have.

 
Stealthycat said:
no, the crime isn't drinking and accidents, the crime is drinking and driving

how have we helped drunk driving ? banning automobiles? adding breathalyzers on all auto's that every time it starts you have to blow into it ? background checks when you buy booze ?

no - hard harsh penalties for being caught breaking the law, that has helped more than anything. Still, a person with a spotless record can stop and buy rum tonight and for whatever reason get plastered drunk and drive down the road and hit and kill someone. Do we call for banning cars? Banning alcohol?

No, the problem isn't the legal auto owners, or people drinking responsibility ... its the exceptionally few who don't pay attention to the laws.

In 2015, 10,265 people died in alcohol-impaired driving crashes, accounting for nearly one-third (29%) of all traffic-related deaths in the United States. Of the 1, 1,132 traffic deaths among children ages 0 to 14 years in 2015, 209 (16%) involved an alcohol-impaired driver.Jun 16, 2017
Click to expand...
Good point, we don't ban cars despite all the harm humans cause with them.

We just heavily regulate their use including criminalizing the use when under the influence of alcohol or drugs (which we test for randomly at check points), require all operators have a license they can only obtain by passing a test, require insurance to cover all damages (which incentivizes insurers to act as oversight to restrict dangerous drivers), require regular inspections to make sure the cars are safe, tag every vehicle with its own unique ID number, require all vehicle transfers to be documented to the government, allow people to sue negligent car owners when their cars are used by other people to cause harm, and allow people to sue car manufacturers if they don't take precautions to make their vehicles as safe as possible.

 
Stealthycat said:
The Commish said:
I didn't claim they were.  As a matter of fact I told you exactly why they were posted and "meaning" wasn't part of the equation.  Again, what's your definition of "meaningful" in terms of gun laws?
Click to expand...
laws that stop criminals without impacting the 99.99% of legal gun owners

like drunk driving laws, pass the ones that don't impact everyone who drives the right way, don't pass laws that impact the 99.99% of drivers
Click to expand...
Laws don't stop criminals.  That's why they are criminals.  They don't even exist to stop people.  They exist to HOPEFULLY guide a person's behavior in a favorable way that benefits society.  We have laws against murder.  Does that stop murders?  Nope.  We have laws against stealing.  Does that stop thieves?  Nope.  There isn't a single law that stops anything.  You have a flawed starting point.  I understand why you have it, but it's flawed.  Incredibly flawed.

Laws don't "impact" us until we break them.  That's when the judicial system kicks in.  The laws against drunk driving don't impact people until they drive drunk.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Stealthycat said:
it seems he was very determined and you do not know if such a law would have worked.

criminal laws .... he broke laws going back to the school, taking a gun on campus, shooting at people .......... what more laws did he break and you think more laws would have stopped him ?

I still believe, 100%, an armed person shooting back at him would have stopped him before anything else would have.
Click to expand...
There was an armed policeman there. 

And the reason that so many people are frustrated discussing issues with you is that you consistently make false assertions, and whenever challenges move right on to the next false assertion without addressing the last one. 

 
TobiasFunke said:
Good point, we don't ban cars despite all the harm humans cause with them.

We just heavily regulate their use including criminalizing the use when under the influence of alcohol or drugs (which we test for randomly at check points), require all operators have a license they can only obtain by passing a test, require insurance to cover all damages (which incentivizes insurers to act as oversight to restrict dangerous drivers), require regular inspections to make sure the cars are safe, tag every vehicle with its own unique ID number, require all vehicle transfers to be documented to the government, allow people to sue negligent car owners when their cars are used by other people to cause harm, and allow people to sue car manufacturers if they don't take precautions to make their vehicles as safe as possible.
Click to expand...
I don’t know, Tobias. What’s the point of all those laws? Somebody will end up breaking them. We can’t stop it. Why have any laws at all? 

 
Stealthycat said:
you are right in a way Hawkeye21, the Constitution should change on things and it has

I disagree that the 2nd amendment is one of them, guns are good, they do good things every minute of the day, they're used to stop crime, deter crime, make arrests .... guns are very very good at stopping crime, its why police carry them, its why federal buildings are protected by them, its why high Govt officials are surrounded by them (as are their kids when at school)
Click to expand...
Guns do all that? I thought it was the people, not the guns. Guess that only applies when talking about the bad things guns do.

 
timschochet said:
You’re also dead repetitive and your question is dead silly and dead tiresome. 
Click to expand...
you don't want to discuss because you see what I'm saying

I want zero school shootings. How do we get there? I mean REASONABLY how can it be done ?

We can go crazy and disband schools and only home school. That would stop it. We could try to change one of the founding Rights of this country and ban guns. We could stop males from going to school since 99% of school shooters are males, right ?

Pretty extreme stuff, so lets get to reasonable.

The quickest, fastest way to deter these shootings? Armed guards at school, armed teachers. You might not like that thought, but it IS the quickest, best solution.

Why?

Because gun free zones are shooter zones, its where shooters go to do their damage. They rarely go to places where someone might have a gun to stop them. Don't believe me? Look it up .... schools, malls, theaters .... gun free = welcome shooter zones

 
TobiasFunke said:
Good point, we don't ban cars despite all the harm humans cause with them.

We just heavily regulate their use including criminalizing the use when under the influence of alcohol or drugs (which we test for randomly at check points), require all operators have a license they can only obtain by passing a test, require insurance to cover all damages (which incentivizes insurers to act as oversight to restrict dangerous drivers), require regular inspections to make sure the cars are safe, tag every vehicle with its own unique ID number, require all vehicle transfers to be documented to the government, allow people to sue negligent car owners when their cars are used by other people to cause harm, and allow people to sue car manufacturers if they don't take precautions to make their vehicles as safe as possible.
Click to expand...
ok lets talk a bit more on that

to the person who has no record of bad driving, they stop tonight and buy a 6 pack, get hammered drunk and drive ............ how does the above laws stop that from happening ?

 
timschochet said:
There was an armed policeman there. 

And the reason that so many people are frustrated discussing issues with you is that you consistently make false assertions, and whenever challenges move right on to the next false assertion without addressing the last one.
Click to expand...
I'm just now reading news this morning - where is the link to that ?

Did he engage the shooter? Shots fired back? was the policeman killed ? I've not read that this morning

 
Stealthycat said:
ok lets talk a bit more on that

to the person who has no record of bad driving, they stop tonight and buy a 6 pack, get hammered drunk and drive ............ how does the above laws stop that from happening ?
Click to expand...
Again....laws aren't there to stop....they are there to influence/deter.  Your false premise isn't going to be any less false the more you repeat it :shrug:   

 
Biff84 said:
Guns do all that? I thought it was the people, not the guns. Guess that only applies when talking about the bad things guns do.
Click to expand...
guns yes, they are the great equalizer to evil people preying on the innocent

no, guns are used for bad things too, but all the good is often ignored

 
Stealthycat said:
no, its very valid

what you are saying is that the cost of people having both the ability to buy alcohol and drive automobiles is worth 10-11,000 drunk driving deaths every year

you do not support technology that would pretty much stop anyone from driving drunk by measuring their breath before the vehicle starts, or technology that wouldn't allow any car to get without 100' of any other car etc

You and I both know why - the impact on all the people driving the right way would be huge - and its simply not worth the 10-11,000 dead bodies. Isn't that the truth ?
Click to expand...
I have said no such thing. You desire that be my point, because it's a ridiculous point, and easy to tear down. It's strawman arguing.

The reason why your comparison isn't valid is because gun ownership for most intents and purposes is a hobby, whereas car ownership for most intents and purposes is a need for transportation.

In the past, bearing arms was considered a need, as it spelled out in the 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State". But in the 21st century the arms people own in their households would be so ineffective that they're not even needed anymore. If the Federal government ever needed to be overthrown by states, it would require military equipment, which would probably be obtained by rebels through other countries. When Americans show up with their personal guns and say "here I am, how can I help" the rebels would pat them on their head, say "Oh you're a good little rebel aren't you. Such a clean AR-15" and then give them a job cleaning toilets. The need stated in the 2nd amendment no longer exists in the 21st century.

Now you will probably say people need them for self defense, which isn't protected by the 2nd amendment, but lets test out that need. Studies have shown that households with guns have suicide success rates that far exceed households that don't own guns. And guns from accidents would be an incredibly high percentage increase, if the denominator of gun accidents in households without guns wasn't 0. The studies have shown that owning a gun to make you safer actually increases the chance of you dying in your lifetime by violence. So do people need guns to make them safer? No. They actually need to get rid of guns in their homes to make them safer.

So yes, gun ownership is a hobby. So please stop comparing it to car ownership, which the vast majority of Americans need. 

 
The big problem with this AR-15 was the 30 shot magazine clip. No need for more than a 5 shot clip IMO. I am a avid hunter, most of my guns are semi auto including several 50-75 year old family heirlooms. I also have a lever action rifle. How fast I can shoot with my lever action vs my semi autos is negligble. Keep in mind most caliber rifles  not come in lever action.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
lazyike said:
The big problem with this AR-15 was the 30 shot magazine clip. No need for more than a 5 shot clip IMO. I am a avid hunter, most of my guns are semi auto including several 50-75 year old family heirlooms. I also have a lever action rifle. How fast I can shoot with my lever action vs my semi autos is negligble. Keep in mind most caliber rifles  not come in lever action.
Click to expand...
I honestly don't see the need for any civilian to have a semi-automatic gun.  They are fun to shoot but what is the need?

 
Stealthycat said:
ok lets talk a bit more on that

to the person who has no record of bad driving, they stop tonight and buy a 6 pack, get hammered drunk and drive ............ how does the above laws stop that from happening ?
Click to expand...
It doesn't. What does that have to do with anything? Is your position is that if a law doesn't stop every possible criminal act it's not a good law? 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
At Least 181 K-12 Educators/Teachers Charged With Child Sex Crimes In First Half Of 2022 (10/1/22 9:22 PST)
Replies
36
Views
1K
tymarsas
T
GordonGekko
Did UC Berkeley Law School Enable "Jewish Free Zones" & Antisemitism With Pro Israel Speaker Bans? ( 10/2/22 11:12 PST)
Replies
10
Views
582
(HULK)
(HULK)
E
Taking Politics Out of Public Schools
Replies
37
Views
882
MAC_32
MAC_32

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 6 (members: 0, guests: 6)
Top