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 (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter randall146
- Start date
KCitons
Footballguy
To be fair, I never told you that.To be fair...you have told us you aren't here for genuine discussion....that ship has apparently sailed, so that sort of response seems appropriate
The Commish
Footballguy
KCitons
Footballguy
That link does nothing but prove my point. You don't want facts.
We've have numerous discussions. You have a problem with me specifically because I don't and won't agree with you. I however, don't care that you don't agree with me.
Have a nice night.
The Commish
Footballguy
How do you know if we agree or not? I don't. We have never gotten to genuine discussion and that exchange clearly identifies why, which I think is unfortunate. I don't know you at all, so why would I have a "problem" with you? Seems like projection to me. I am more than comfortable being in the same place with people who don't agree with me.
Now, what I will say is that I DO NOT agree with your silly analogies, but I have no idea what opinions/positions of yours you are covering up by using them to deflect from genuine discussion. To my recollection we have never gotten beyond those smoke screens and I am absolutely confident you know very little about my positions as you continually ask me about banning guns despite me telling you countless times I don't want to ban guns.
KCitons
Footballguy
I don't know why you feel I owe you a conversation? My opinions have been posted dozens of times on this board. I don't need to direct them specifically at you for you to read and understand them.
KCitons
Footballguy
Hawkeye21
Footballguy
I feel many people who think they need an AR-15 are already not living in reality. They fantasize about movies like Rambo, video games like CoD and being in the zombie apocalypse. I get it though, I love that stuff too. I also think AR-15 rifles and guns like them are pretty sweet, I just don't think every person should have a right to own one.
Last edited by a moderator:
KCitons
Footballguy
This is a pretty broad generalization.
Do you think the same about people that drive anything besides a Prius as fantasizing about movies like Fast N Furious?
Hawkeye21
Footballguy
Of course it's a broad generalization. It was meant to be. The thing with generalizations and stereotypes is that they are generally based off of something very real. I know not everyone that owns an AR-15 is that way, that's why I didn't say all AR-15 owners. You and everyone else know that there are plenty of people that way though. We also know a lot of people who drive cars like on Fast and Furious probably love those movies as well. I think it's kind of common sense that people have similar interests like that.
KCitons
Footballguy
Fair enough. So if someone wants to buy an AR15 and pretend they are Rambo by shooting it at a range or out in the woods and isn't using it to commit mass shootings, is there a problem with that? A lot of the things consumers buy are in an effort to make us look and feel like someone in the advertisement.
In the end, we are left with determining if the effects of a gun like the AR15 are so negative that we need to impose a ban. And therein lies the problem with this discussion. Some believe it is, others don't. You cannot interject the argument about saving lives at all costs because, we as a society, have decided other things cause a loss of life and we believe those are an acceptable offset.
Last edited by a moderator:
Hawkeye21
Footballguy
I use to think it was just fine and have even taken part in shooting guns like that for fun at a range. As I get older I'm starting to think that we may not be able to handle such responsibility to allow just anyone to have guns like that though. I think a ban on specific guns is extreme but I would most likely support it if I thought it would have a greater positive effect than a negative effect. I think it would be best to have more restrictions on who can buy them before it came to banning though.
KCitons
Footballguy
When you think about guns as it compares to alcohol, cigarettes or autos, have we done anything similar to educate people on the dangers of firearms? You can't go an hour watching tv without a car commercial where the car is being driven inappropriately. But, they have the disclaimer that it's a professional driver on a closed course, or do not attempt disclaimer. There are hundreds of beer commercials with the disclaimer to drink responsibly. Have you ever seen any firearm commercials? It just seems to me the more you make it taboo, the more people desire something.
Growing up, my Dad tried to keep any sexual content from us kids. We weren't allowed to watch shows like Three's Company. Even in those days, if a heated make out scene came on during a show (on network tv), he would change the channel for 20 seconds. When I was 17, I asked him to record the movie American Graffiti. When I put the tape in a few days later, it came to the part where Toad was making out with that girl at the lake. The recording was stopped and restarted a few minutes later? Little did my Dad know, I was actually at a girls house having sex while he was censoring that movie.
Point being, we need to accept what we are and find ways to educate without removing things. It only makes those things more desirable.
Also, my Dad would probably support the removal of the Who's Hottest threads.
The Commish
Footballguy
You don't owe me anything and I have never said otherwise. It's pretty clear you will go out of your way not to have actual conversations. Why? I don't know. You seem to be of the impression that everyone is out to change your mind. That's not the case. You seem to be unwilling to talk about guns without comparing it to other things that aren't all that similar. So when one is so resistant like you are there really seems to be only one explanation and you've emphatically denied it over and over. I'd like an alternate explanation just from a social perspective because it's quite peculiar. Of course you don't owe it to me and won't offer it but it would be nice.
Your opinions are here somewhere, I'm sure. They were probably given well before we crossed paths. If you'd like to point them out, to help me understand, great. If not, I'll simply say that in the couple months we've had direct interaction with each other, I haven't seen them. I've seen a comment here or there that I thought might be part of your perspective, but every follow up to dig a little deeper was either ignored or met with a question/tangent into something else completely. The rest of your work that I've read is along those same lines. So I know my experience with you isn't unique. I'm sure there's a reason for that. I'm just not sure what it is.
KCitons
Footballguy
Honestly, I have not idea what you want.
Do you want to know my stance on gun control? It's been posted over and over in multiple threads. I can lay it out here for you if that's what you need. But, I fear that I will just waste my time and you will accuse me of not having a conversation.
Do you want to know why I have that stance on gun control? I have posted that over and over as well. I can answer that once again for you if that's what you need.
I would like you to answer a question before we continue. How do you define a conversation? Because I think we have two different ideas.
The Commish
Footballguy
Conversation to me is about discussing the topic and meeting a person where they're at and understanding their position, asking questions about it and doing your best to explain your position should there be confusion or follow up. We would start with you explaining your stated goals for gun control and me doing the same.
ETA: I don't need it restated if you don't want to. Just point me to where it's stated the first time....that works fine for me.
Last edited by a moderator:
KCitons
Footballguy
For the record you are asking about gun control, but don't mention your overall goal. Is it to lower the number of mass shootings, or to lower all gun related deaths?
Here is my stance:
Education and awareness. We do very little in the way of gun education in this country in comparison to anti-smoking, anti dui, and other harmful things. If we can move the needle in those other areas, we should at least try with guns as well.
Universal background check. This should be simple and cost effective. I don't see a need for there to be a cost that runs in the hundreds of dollars because our government can't execute something that most companies can accomplish for $15-$20. Private party sales would need to be handled through a third party where this background check can be conducted. Again, the cost of which should be minimal. Point being, fees should not make owning a gun prohibitive.
Limit magazine capacity to 6 rounds. This would bring all guns to the same ability as revolvers. It would require a mass shooter to change magazines 5x to accomplish what they can do with a 30 round magazine.
Make AR15 (or other similar weapons) available in .22 caliber only. This would prevent a ban of specific guns and would allow manufacturers to continue in some form and hopefully protect some jobs, while allowing law abiding gun owners the ability to play Rambo.
Hawkeye21
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
Well, you asked for my definition of conversation before you wanted to go further, so I didn't feel it appropriate to just jump right in and start without agreement to do so. To your initial question, my answer is neither. I want a well regulate militia....period. To me that means well documented/defined and healthy. I think if we do that, reduction in death takes care of itself. Deaths, are a symptom of the actual problem.
I don't have issue with the above in any way and I think they are all good steps forward if the focus is deaths. Some of these fit into my regulation goals as well. These are the things I have listed in prior threads with regard to regulation:
1. Complete traceability from gun manufacturer to owner throughout the life of the gun.
2. Much more in depth background checks as well as a mental health assessment every time someone wants to purchase a gun.
3. Going back to #1, the official owner of the weapon having at least partial responsibility for "incidents" that happen with the weapon they own.
4. Require insurance on every single weapon owned.
5. If any of the above cost a ton of money, that money comes from a hefty tax on gun purchases and equipment. (We can limit the scope of guns here to assault rifles or hand guns etc...not fully thought this one through...open to suggestions).
As I think more about it and read what you've posted, my overall goal with #3,4,5 are really driven by education and this is what I mean. There's no question that guns are glorified in this country. They way they are portrayed in movies, TV shows, video games etc is part of the problem IMO. Owning a gun is serious business and I think our regulations/requirements for owning them should reflect that. As noted in #5, I haven't really thought a lot about the funding required to achieve the first 4 things.
Stealthycat
Footballguy
I love these posts
1. how will that stop a criminal or insane person from using a gun or knife or weapons to kill people? it wont
2. agreed - we need to identify people with mental issues, stop them from driving, having guns, knives etc. Institutionalize them and get them help.
3. if someone steals you car and hits someone and kills them, its your fault too then right ?
4. insure knives, ball bats and anything that can be used as a weapon, right ?
5. actually all that money comes from those who thinks it'll help - ya'll want it so bad, YOU pay for it. And the best part is, criminals will just ignore all that anyway won't they ?
I have a radical idea. Change the way people view violence. Stop the aired violence in Hollywood and tv and media. Don't accept people being mean and hateful and violence - we need a society that doesn't accept that. People who truly have mental issues, get them help and remove them from society if they're a threat. Authorities acting immediately on people threatening others.
Stealthycat
Footballguy
I love these posts
1. how will that stop a criminal or insane person from using a gun or knife or weapons to kill people? it wont
2. agreed - we need to identify people with mental issues, stop them from driving, having guns, knives etc. Institutionalize them and get them help.
3. if someone steals you car and hits someone and kills them, its your fault too then right ?
4. insure knives, ball bats and anything that can be used as a weapon, right ?
5. actually all that money comes from those who thinks it'll help - ya'll want it so bad, YOU pay for it. And the best part is, criminals will just ignore all that anyway won't they ?
I have a radical idea. Change the way people view violence. Stop the aired violence in Hollywood and tv and media. Don't accept people being mean and hateful and violence - we need a society that doesn't accept that. People who truly have mental issues, get them help and remove them from society if they're a threat. Authorities acting immediately on people threatening others.
Do that, and have a strong defense in case people DO crack and want to hurt other and that'd help greatly.
1/3 of gun deaths are suicide
1/3 of gun deaths are drug use/domestic violence
eliminate the above, and the gun deaths fall to around drunk driving death numbers - that should be acceptable to everyone, right? then start focusing on getting it down even lower - and never be focusing on law abiding people, that's just silly
Last edited by a moderator:
Stealthycat
Footballguy
they never had mass shootings anyway
hard to say anything stopped anything when it was never happening ............ and AUS has like 26 million people only, right?
Stealthycat
Footballguy
;;;;;;
Last edited by a moderator:
sho nuff
Footballguy
I would also bet that a family murder/suicide here and the gun crowd would argue against calling it a mass shooting.
Ive seen multiple places where the gun crowd is using this saying...”see”!!! Not realizing that 1 incident in 20+ years shows what has worked.
The Commish
Footballguy
@KCitons This is an example of NOT having a conversation that I avoid and use as an indicator of someone who does NOT want to have a genuine conversation.
Stealthycat flat out ignored the specific stated purpose of my proposal and tried to fit it into a narrative he's comfortable arguing against. @Stealthycat my goal isn't to stop criminals or insane people from using a gun or knife or weapons to kill people. Why would you require my solutions to fix something I am not trying to fix? NOTE: It's a rhetorical question....I don't expect a response at all and I certainly don't expect one that actually addresses the question.
Hawkeye21
Footballguy
We've already gone over this. Only 7 people died in the worst shooting in two decades. I'd be very happy if we could say something like that. It's also not similar to the mass shootings we generally talk about here as it looks to be a domestic shooting.
Don't forget that not all guns are banned in Australia, farmers are allowed guns. There are exceptions.
Hawkeye21
Footballguy
Doesn't this kind of go against other rights that we have as Americans? Seems you're ok infringing on other rights just as long as your right to bear arms is not infringed on.
Officer Pete Malloy
Footballguy
"Gun laws will only hurt law-abiding gun owners!"
"We should do away with violence on TV and in movies because there are some lunatics out there that are negatively influenced by it."
Zow
Footballguy
This is absurdly difficult and complicated. Seriously. It borders on the logistical and legal nightmare of the government trying to actually confiscate guns.
KCitons
Footballguy
It works both ways. One way you're dealing with the tool that carries out the action, the other you're dealing with the cause.
"Gun laws will only hurt law-abiding gun owners!"
"We should do away withviolence on TV and in moviesguns because there are some lunatics out there that are negatively influenced by it."
The way I look at it, would the world be a safer place without guns? Yes. Would the world be a better place without violence. Absolutely. I think if you fix the propensity for the latter, the former won't be as big of a deal.
KCitons
Footballguy
Officer Pete Malloy
Footballguy
KCitons
Footballguy
KCitons
Footballguy
@The Commish This is an example of NOT having a conversation. And why I usually have my defenses up.
Officer Pete Malloy
Footballguy
KCitons
Footballguy
Then the point of your post was to take a shot at me?
Put me on ignore.
Thanks.
The Commish
Footballguy
You can help it (I think). He can't....if it's not on script he needs to get it on script to make it fit the talking points. This is precisely why I have given up trying to have productive conversation with him, but still reach out to you from time to time.I thought I was the example?
The Commish
Footballguy
Officer Pete Malloy
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
I acknowledge that it's strict, but I think it's necessary. And IMO, there isn't really anything out there like a gun, so to me it makes sense that it would have regulation that nothing else does. I also acknowledge getting 100% registration is a pipe dream, but it should be the goal IMO. I understand there's a fear factor around corralling all the guns etc. I don't see why that couldn't be handled in legislation. I mean, we have legislation that states meaningful research isn't allowed. I don't see why we can't have legislation that says we can't use the registry for a list of specific things.
Agree here. My thoughts here are around private sales. Background checks should apply to these as well. My thought here is that we as individuals need to prove we can be part of the well regulated militia. It's one of those things that, IMO, shouldn't be assumed where we give the benefit of the doubt. It's on us to prove that as individuals
I should be clearer here. I think that if there is negligence found during the investigation, the official owner should be at least partially responsible. It would be part of the investigation of how the gun got in the wrong hands in the first place (sort of like a chain of custody type of thing). If it's an owner that just leaves it laying around and someone steals it, that's one thing. If someone breaks into a safe, jimmies a trigger lock etc to steal the gun, that's something else. I'd include those who didn't go through the proper transfer of ownership process on the negligent side of the equation. This pillar is still certainly a work in progress. I think there's probably a relatively clear line we could agree upon with this one.
A good number of insurance policies already cover gun accidents. This one, for me, is more about the educating part and impressing on people how significant gun ownership is. With this, I was thinking more about the restitution to families than anything. The more deadly the gun, the higher the rider for ownership. But again, guns are a unique beast IMO, so comparisons sort of fall flat to me. I think this would change and people would be willing to carry the insurance if they knew that they could be held responsible for the actions of someone else if negligence were found. But certainly, this one popped into my mind while thinking about #3.
This is the least thought through of my position. I feel like the burden of gun ownership in this country should fall on the gun owners. I'm not sure how to best approach that, but that's my goal. If there's another way to do that, I'm all ears.
Last edited by a moderator:
KCitons
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
This would be huge...and if I am not mistaken, I think this is changing? I thought I read that the CDC was now authorized to collect data? I could be making that up, but this will be big. I can certainly wait for research data to come back before acting.
And I will always be at a loss as to why one feels a comparison is necessary. It just doesn't make sense to me. Ultimately, we aren't directed by the Constitution to have well regulated cars, alcohol, whatever other example you want to use. This is why it will never make sense to me to bring those sorts of things up. It seems to me that the Founding Fathers believed guns to be a special case...special enough to be addressed on their own and not lumped in with a bunch of other things that people could use to harm themselves and/or each other. The Constitution calls for our militias to be well regulated. This is what I want to solve for....how do we properly regulate our militia?
Yes...civil cases can be brought. I am talking about ratcheting up the criminal side of things in hopes that we impress on people the gravity of owning a weapon. A family shouldn't have to sue someone to receive justice for their child/loved one dying at the hands of another because of their direct involvement OR their negligence contributing to the events.
I gave you my reason...it's to shift the responsibility to those who own/possess the guns as much as possible. I don't think it can ALL be shifted to them. I don't have any scores to settle. I have no revenge to be gotten. To me, it's the price one pays to exercise their right to be part of the well regulated militia. My goal isn't to reduce deaths, so this perspective doesn't matter all that much to me (no offense meant).
KCitons
Footballguy
Stealthycat
Footballguy
what do you want from me ?
you want to trace a gun - that's fine, except what about people who break the law and buy guns that can't be traced or buy from people outside the law and what about the legal people like Paddock and Cruz who were original purchasers .... tracing would do nothing, nor would the kids who take guns from relatives etc
so why in the world trace guns when it really would have no impact?
I agreed on #2, why didn't you acknowledge that?
on #3 you don't want to talk about all the other things in this world that there is no shared responsibility on when people commit crimes - why apply it to guns? why in the hell would I be held responsible for someone's actions after they steal my gun ? just a bizarre concept that is consistent with people wanting to ignore the problem (criminals) and only focus on the law abiding people
on insurance I was asking if you want to make mandatory insurance on all weapons people use - makes sense doesn't it ?
and of course #5 force other people to pay for the things you want. that's not a solution to the core problem
so you see, I don't mind discussions at all - its actually you who don't want to discuss these things
Stealthycat
Footballguy
have we gone over it ?
from 1971 to the Port Arthur massacre ... 25 years ..... 111 deaths in mass murders
since 1971, 47 years .... 92 deaths
gun bans have literally had no impacts on mass murders in Australia ?
understad they have 25 million people, they're not as diverse as we are, there are other thing that separate Australia from us ....there are more guns in Australia now that before the bans, and like an estimated 650,000 illegal guns too
people still kill people there
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_Australia
and in the past 2 decades there have been way more than 7 people killed in mass killings in AUS incidents that we know of
Stealthycat
Footballguy
I thought the left wanted to take people's rights in the name of the greater good ? no ?
Stealthycat
Footballguy
the difference
"Gun laws will only hurt law-abiding gun owners!"
"We should do away with violence on TV and in movies because there are some lunatics out there that are negatively influenced by it."
I want to target the people who are threatening others, the very small percentage of people and I want them to get help.
The anti-gun people ignore those people, they want to target law abiding citizens.
As for the violence in movies and music - you want me to give up my guns, but its too much to ask for movies to stop glorifying shooting people huh ?
Similar threads
