Dont Taze Me Bro

Kosh made a good point in the Oregon School shooting thread. Focus on the tragedy, victims, their families, etc. instead of almost immediately debating one's views on gun control. I was in the past and now am guilty for contributing to those debates. It's not that there is anything wrong with debating topics, cause that's how we roll in the Tailgate. But we always go down the same rabbit hole when some tragic shooting like this happens. Sadly, it happens too often, but we have to many threads where gun control and politics and personal rights, etc. get discussed within those threads. So with that said. Post all of that in here. Debate away. Feel free to include any thoughts on gun control, regulation, political views on the topic, etc. and feel free to cite specific examples when doing so or referencing those tragic events (e.g. Sandy Hook, Charleston, Oregon, etc.) but do it in here and leave the individual threads open to pay respects to the victims, updated news on the case, etc. Some of you could care less and that's fine. Just trying to keep the same ole debate in one place instead of always doing it in multiple threads. Here was my first post about possible solutions from the Oregon thread: I'm a gun owner, and I'm open to stricter laws/regulations to help prevent horrific **** like this from happening. I'm not sure where to start though. I'm sure the fact that people can steal guns, buy from the black market, take legally purchased firearms their relatives have, etc. doesn't make it any easier. I keep mine locked up in a gun safe, but I'm sure a lot of owners don't, which helps contribute to the problem and allows psychos easy access, like the Sandy Hook tragedy. That ****nut killed his mom and took her guns, all legally purchased and registered to her. Access has to be one of the largest contributors in these violent crimes. I dunno, start with raising the age one can purchase all guns? That might be a good starting place. Most states you can purchase shotguns and long barrel rifles at age 18 and handguns at age 21. Given the age of a lot of these shooters, a lot of them seem relatively younger, especially in the latest tragedies. Sandy Hook, guy was age 20, this shooting guy was age 20. Charleston church shootings, guy was 21 and purchased it legally. We don't know how the latest gunman got the handguns, but since he isn't 21, we know he didn't purchase them. I'm with Sin on this, gotta start cracking down on gun regulations first. Mental health awareness, etc. needs to continue as well. I think outside of law enforcement, civilians should be able to purchase shotguns/rifles starting at age 25 and handguns say at age 29-30. For those that hunt, require them to obtain a hunting rifle permit that allows them access to use a family member/friends legal hunting rifle only during the hunting season. Would it make it more difficult for those under age 25 to hunt? Yes, but I don't care if it will decrease the number of tragedies like this from happening.

Finishing last 8 times over the past 17 seasons is not something to brag about. There are multiple ways one can break it down though. Hell, two of those last place finishes was under Gibbs 2.0, two under Zorn, three under Shanny and only one under Jay (his first season). One might say that we are improving overall in Jay's tenure, people like Bruce. Looking at the bigger picture, where did we end up across all four spots? I looked, from 2002-2018 and this is how we finished in all four spots in the NFC East: 1st - 2 times 2nd - 1 time 3rd - 6 times 4th - 8 times For me, finishing third in the division isn't much better than finishing fourth. Hell, from purely draft position, it's worse cause most likely has you picking in the middle and not top 10. Now I'm not the type to pull for us to lose, I just can't do that, even if it came down to the last season of the game with the first round pick on the line (lose we get it, win we don't). Just like I can never root for a Dallas win, even if it would get us into the playoffs. One of those third place finishes did yield a playoff spot with a 9-7 record, under Gibbs II. So it's even more depressing big picture, in what world does the owner look at this and think that it is acceptable? Take it further, here is where we finished since 2010 when Bruce came aboard: 1st - 2 times 2nd -0 times 3rd - 3 times 4th - 4 times First place twice, 2012 under Shanny with a gimmick offense that actually worked due to the Olympic speed of our rookie QB. And 2015 under Jay with McVay calling plays and Kirks first year as a starter, with weapons. Maybe for now, that's what keeps saving Bruce's job, or part of the reason. Along with the 3rd place finishes where 7 wins and plethora of injuries is an excuse to be made to Danny that we "are almost over the hump". The argument can also be made that credit should go to former GMSM for the 2015 season and not to Bruce. Same with 2012 credit going to the Shanny's and the read option offense and not to Bruce. I look at it and see 7 bad/horrible seasons out of the last 9 sprinkled with a dash of success and pinch of luck.

If you have Hulu, Future Man season 2 dropped last week. I find the show hilarious.

1. I didn't say it was a bad law (at least not from limiting magazine capacity), was merely pointing out previous bans grandfathered in or compensated for the items being banned. The idea to implement a ban on high capacity magazines and not do either of those, most likely isn't going to stand. Which leads us to the scenario that if they were only banned for future manufacture and sales, people that already owned them being grandfathered in, then potentially they would still be used in these tragic events. 2. I get that, I'm talking in general though. 3. Less conceal carry permits will not equate into less guns. I don't have a conceal carry permit, because at this point, I don't feel that I need to. Will that change in the future? Possibly, who knows. Your thoughts on increasing those fees would generate needed revenue to regulate guns. If less people are purchasing concealed carry permits due to a hike in fees, that's less revenue. Doesn't mean they won't go out and buy a handgun. 4. I've listed tons of ideas in the past on here. I'll toss a few out here again: Raising the age limit to 21 to purchase all firearms; stricter background checks; implementing a database that tracks the purchase of firearms and ammo (if they can track and regulate me purchasing Mucinex, they could easily do this); require permits to purchase all firearms, not just handguns; require registration of all firearms; forbid the sale of any firearms directly between individuals or at gun shows, require all sales to be brokered through one of the local gun shops and charge a reasonable brokering fee 5. I agree that it would be opening a can of worms, would be hard to prove in most cases as well. It would have to be cut and dry and not open up for interpretation (e.g. clearly define what is considered secure; at minimum all semi-automatic weapons secured with a trigger lock and stored in a locked safe, unloaded, and access to the safe (biometric fingerprints, keys, etc.) restricted to the owner (and spouse) and children of age 21 and older, etc.). 6. And that could matter, depending on the location and if there is anywhere to run to. And I'm not saying that gun magazines shouldn't be limited because the extra time doesn't matter. If it saves just one more life during these shootings, implement it. 7. I agree that stricter mental health checks presents more hurdles.

I know this was initially in response to Buzz, but included some of the points we were discussing, so I'd like to respond to this. 1. It's easy to say "implement a ban on magazines larger that hold more than 10 rounds" and require owners to turn them over to authorities to be destroyed, etc. etc. But that isn't how it works in reality. Just look at the recent federal ban on bump stocks, its going to court due to them not providing compensation to owners of one that purchased it legally. I think everyone on here (pro gun, hates guns, etc.) agrees that they should be banned, there is zero reason for anyone to be able to take a semi-automatic weapon and convert it to achieve fire rates equivalent to fully automatic weapons. This is the first time there has been a ban and the owners of the banned item were not grandfathered in or compensated for their purchase. During the assault rifle ban implemented during the Clinton administration, it banned the future manufacturing and sale of specific models, but owners that purchased them legally prior to the ban were grandfathered in, as they should be, imo. Heck, when they banned machine guns in 1986, owners were grandfathered in for those too. I'm not a legal expert, but I'm willing to bet that in the courts, it is eventually ruled that current owners are grandfathered in or have to be compensated and only future manufacture/sale is banned. And I'll go back to my question earlier. Say there was a ban on magazines larger than 10 rounds and it was approved that owners in possession had to turn them over, etc. Where is the funding and resources going to come from to enforce this? 2. Increasing concealed carry permit costs won't impact any recoupment of cost. What makes this harder than it should be is the fact that each state has it's own laws/regulations and requirements for firearms and conceal carry. Some states are similar, but most are different. Me personally, I think the regulations should be uniform across all the states. I live in NC, you are required to take a concealed carry class prior to applying for the permit, those vary in cost, typically $100 or so and then the permit costs $90 ($80 for the permit and $10 to be fingerprinted), $75 renewal fee (which is every 5 years). I imagine if they jacked up the initial cost too much, or made one renew every year, etc. that it would deter people from even conceal carrying, which would result in an actual decrease in revenue over time. Implementing higher taxes for gun purchases, similar to alcohol and cigarettes, that would generate more revenue, not necessarily a bad thing, depending on what that tax would be. 3. My problem with this is both sides not working together to come up with the best course of action to take on trying to decrease these tragic events from happening. Not starting with the implementation of common sense laws and working from there. 4. Due to the fact that in some of these instances the guns were obtained from the shooters parents, shouldn't a starting point be to have stricter penalties on those that did not properly secure their firearms in the first place and it was used in a mass shooting or any crime? Slippery slope potentially on proving they didn't have them secured most likely. My thoughts though are even if magazine capacity is limited to 10 rounds, if the firearm is not properly secured and there is basically free access to it or easy access to it, it doesn't help prevent these events from happening. 5. When speaking to law enforcement engaged in a shoot-out or military engaged in combat, sure larger magazines provide one with a greater tactical advantage than smaller magazines, same with someone that conceal carries in a situation where there live is in danger. When talking about someone that is going to commit mass murder against unarmed civilians that will not be able to fire back, they already have the ultimate advantage over those they intend to harm. Whether it's 10 round clips or 40 round clips. They aren't engaging in combat and taking return fire. 6. Mental health evaluation is a huge part of the overall solution, imo. Agreed, due to HIPAA, etc. it makes it harder to move forward.

You pulled an article in regards to concealed carry.......and quoted only one small part of it. The article goes on to explain that in the event one (that is conceal carrying) runs into a situation where someone is a viable deadly threat to them, they have a small window of time to react. And having a handgun that can hold more rounds is more effective than one that doesn't. That's just common knowledge. This article has nothing to do with lunatics that go shooting up schools, churches, etc. She won't answer anything or elaborate on any of the points shes trying to make. Or debate the issues or offer possible solutions to the problem, she's just trolling at this point. Edit: I'm all for hearing ideas to stop mass killings and gun related deaths. The problem is, a lot just want to either make extreme suggestions or toss out ideas like limiting this or that to this, but don't want to debate the issue of how that will be accomplished. Unfortunately, there is funding and budgets needed to implement most of these ideas. Which in turn makes it more difficult, along with the whole legal part and involvement by the NRA, etc.

If your argument is that reducing magazine capacity will greatly increase reload times and somehow generate enough weight to slow down the lunatic committing mass murder on innocent civilians, then I guess a lot of us on here beg to differ. Huge difference when talking tactical advantage when used by the military engaged in combat with the enemy or the police engaged in a shoot-out with criminals versus the actions of one mentally disturbed shooter firing into crowds of unarmed men, women and children. But I suspect you already know that and just feel the need to troll the issue.

What you are failing to realize is that there is not really any burden on dealing with multiple magazines that are already pre-loaded and ready to go, even for someone with minimal experience. A 10 round clip isn't that large and not heavy at all. One can easily pre-load six 10 round clips, put them in their pants or jacket pockets and have easy, quick access to them. Hell, anyone can purchase tactical gear (vests, pants, leg bags, etc.) with plenty of pouches, etc. to hold multiple clips. Simple cargo pants with the extra pockets could hold three 10 round clips on each leg. And again, you are failing to acknowledge that the location of a lot of mass shootings means everything. Especially schools, kids are in class rooms with no where to run/hide. Most schools were not designed in a way to keep those people out. My daughters school has an SRO that is there daily, they also have the school locked down as far as access from the outside. When you go to her school, there is only one way in, through the front door which is locked and you have to be buzzed in. I'm lucky that hers offers at least that much protection. But, I'm a worrier, I think beyond that, because there is no way to stop some lunatic from parking and walking right around the back into the baseball fields, playground area when multiple classes are out for recess. When her class is outside, it's with the other five 5th grade classrooms (so 6 total classes, around 25 kids per class, that's 150 children). I just asked her if the SRO was outside during that and she said no (I think he has to patrol the entire area, inside and out - and it's just one officer). That entire area could be accessed by anyone easily. My priorities lie with my child and others children being safe, so my main focus is what do we do to accomplish that first. As I stated earlier, I'm not against magazine capacity limitations, but how will the local law enforcement enforce those new laws? What checks and balances would or could be implemented? Where is the money/budget going to come from to provide the extra resources needed to enforce or what department or area does the current funding/budget get cut to allow for this? And the above goes for my suggestions on securing the schools. ****, most schools can't even afford supplies (klenex, paper, pencils, pens, etc.) and already rely on the parents to donate/provide that. I know my daughters school does. Where is the funding going to come from?

Like I said, I'm fine with with limiting magazine capacity if it means saving lives. The only inconvenience to me would be when I went to the range and wanted to shoot a gun that normally had more than 10 rounds. And that can be solved by pre-loading more magazines ahead of time. But don't look past the point I made on the location of these shootings. These mentally ill people are walking into schools and mass murdering. A lot of those poor kids are trapped in classrooms, with no where to hide or run to. Or at a church, just walking right in. Or a club. Some of these places are open and allow for an easier means of escaping or getting to a safe hiding spot. A lot don't. I get the point you are making, on 2-3 seconds allowing possibly needed time to escape, so again, I'm not dismissing the plea to reduce magazine capacity. Since it seems nothing is being done about it at all, we aren't likely going to get multiple courses of action at once. Which is why I think if you had to pick one thing to focus on in the now, it would be protecting schools before reducing magazine capacity. As far as grabbing the clip and weighing one down, the weight of one loaded 10 round clip is not that much. Even if they put six 10 round clips in their pockets, it's not going to slow them down.

I figured as much. Like I said, I've never had a reason to time my reloads, so I went with a higher time estimate based on not rushing.

I just target shoot for fun, so I've never paid any attention to that either, cause there is no need to rush. But I know changing out clips on my handgun at the range couldn't take more than 10 seconds, since the next clip is already loaded and ready to go. And yes, it would be changing out a clip on any semi-automatic rifle with another loaded clip. I couldn't imagine it taking longer than 20 seconds, especially if the person changing it wanted to go as fast as they could. As you and anyone on here that owns guns and shoots guns knows, it's pretty much as easy as taking apart two Lego blocks and snapping another one on.

I'm in favor of of stricter measures that allow one access to all guns along with common sense gun laws and stiffer penalties for parents/people that do not keep their **** locked up to prevent their firearms from being used in these horrible tragic events. I can honestly say that I am fine with limiting magazine capacity, not sure what that right number is though. Because when you put some thought into it, the people that are committing these mass shootings are crazy, mentally ill, etc. Troubled people that can murder or mass murder are going to find ways to do so. Limit the magazines to 10 rounds, instead of using one 30 round clip, they pack three 10 round clips. Or six 10 round clips instead of two 30 round ones. I'm not sure if you have ever fired a semi-automatic riffle or not, but changing out clips is extremely easy and fast, even for beginners/amateurs. It really is as fast as pressing the button to release the empty magazine and popping a new one in place, talking 15-20 seconds tops, probably even faster if one wanted to. Now will that extra 20 seconds save lives? Just one life? If yes, then it's definitely something to consider or implement. I think the where the shootings are taking place (schools, clubs, festivals, etc.) and the security measures in place to prevent them along with how this person got access to the firearm in the first place is a bigger problem than limiting magazine capacity (not dismissing this by any means). It's a huge crowd of people in tight areas, in some cases, with no where to hide or get out of sight of these psychos. Something needs to be done though. I worry about my daughter every day, at school, at the Dave and Busters with my wife, movies, etc. Cause it could happen anywhere and anytime.

Cause reloading at the range sucks? In all seriousness, I wouldn't say anyone "needs" guns that hold more than 10 rounds. Most likely "wants" fits that answer. As Buzz stated though, depending on the type of gun you want, some are made to hold more rounds than others. If you want a .45 caliber, a Colt .45 typically holds 8+1 (which is under 10 rounds). But if you want a 9mm, the Glock 19 holds anywhere from 15 to 33 rounds. I'd imagine that it probably comes standard with a 15 or 17 round clip, but you can upgrade to clips that hold 33 rounds.

It was ****ing glorious.........9-43 from beyond the arc

LOL not what I was hoping for, but what should be expected. All I can do is laugh now, hysterically laugh at the **** show that is the Washington Redskins franchise. 1. Pro-Bowl safety complains to media about soft practices and defensive coordinator and play calling; player gets cut right before season ends with FO not waiting until things calm down in the off-season to try and trade said player for some type of compensation. 2. Pro-Bowl safety, despite all of the "he's been on 4 teams in 6 years" justification from some fans/media immediately gets claimed off waivers by one of those former teams. 3. Bruce Allen retained and still driving the car off the cliff while holding Danny's hand. 4. Redskins fire Brian Lafemina along with three of his executives (Steve Ziff, Jake Bye, Todd Kline). 5. Rumors/reports that multiple coaches are tired of said three ring circus and want out (Jim Tomsula, Bill Callahan) 6. Manusky still retained, despite being a horrible defensive coordinator and horrible play caller (my guess is this was damage control for the whole screwed up mishandling of the DJ situation - e.g. not letting one disgruntled, but honest player get a coach fired) 7. Once word gets out that Gregg Williams is still available, Redskins actively pursue him for the defensive coordinator position that is currently filled. Along with also interviewing other candidates for the same position. 8. Redskins also interview Joe Woods for defensive backs coaching position......while that position is also currently filled by Torrian Gray Please feel free to add to the list.......I'm out of give a ****s at this point, it's hopeless. It should be a real simple concept, if you are going to interview for a coaching position, fire the flipping coach at that position before conducting interviews. So sick of the backwards ass way things are done with this organization. Is there any legit defensive coordinator candidates left?

gotcha, I thought that might be the basis of it getting temp closed and the new sticky post from Jumbo. And agreed, no place for that in your thread or in the Stadium.

@Renegade7 Just curious, in your thread in the Stadium, where did anyone make it political or about religion? I didn't read the entire 10 pages, just the original post and then the responses after my post. Was that in reference to the ones that got into a race debate? The only religious reference I saw was me saying if that trade up did happen I'd **** like a street preacher, was merely a joke and I wouldn't think that would justify locking it up. If it did, sorry about my attempt in humor.

Yeah, the Chucky version of Hard Knocks would be interesting too. Forgot about them for a minute. I guess it depends if they want to go with Jon's controversial return and what that means in the future. Or to a dumpster fire of an organization with more drama and if GW returns, that drama with his reactions to it. Dude has been money for that show lol. Also, what if they want to screw with Snyder since he is so private and stays out of the spotlight, by putting cameras inside their operations. I think he was just on twice with the Rams and Browns.

Even though I'm against pulling off another trade to move up and giving up future first round picks. Whatever happens, I'll pull for this team until the day they no longer exist or I no longer exist. Even if that means giving up picks to draft Haskins. I will not like it, I do not support the idea and I'm sure I'd **** about it, especially if it didn't work out. But at the end of the day, what the team decides to do is out of my control and everyone else's, regardless of what side of the fence you're on in this topic. And at the end of the day, we all just want to win too.

If GW comes back, 100% guarantee that we will be on Hard Knocks next. We already are one of the teams that if picked would have to do it, with no say so about it. What a story that would be......Gregg Williams back in DC after being let go when Gibbs retired and being involved in bounty gate, bouncing from team to team, getting a shot in Cleveland and going 5-3 as interim head coach only to be fired after the Browns went with a younger, less experienced hire in Freddie Kitchens.

I was against GW after the Browns fired him, mainly because I didn't think he would consider working for Dan again and the fact that we basically have no safeties left for his safety heavy scheme. But, if the reports are true that him and Dan are cool again, screw it, bring him back as DC or HC if he wants to come back. At least we know if he is our DC, those guys are going to get their asses kicked in practice and work hard or go home. There will be no more of this soft BS. Hell, it wouldn't even surprise me if do get him back that Dan has a plan to make him HC either after the 2019 season or something like that. If we do get him back, we most likely go DB or S in the draft first round right? And all the draft gurus, confirm.....this isn't a draft that is deep with secondary talent is it? Looks like it's a lot heavier on defensive tackles.

Pretty sure you won’t get alcohol poisoning from a six pack of Coors Light.

1. Where did I ever say that I wouldn't have done the RGIII trade again if it had worked? I said I was 100% on board at the time, even though I thought it was a risk. 2. I don't put too much value in that point system, it's just on paper. Heck, anyone can manipulate the point system on paper to fit what outcome they desire. Doesn't mean any team is willing to accept the trade offer. Most likely, teams are going to ask for more than what some point system is listed. I doubt any team would want any of those injury prone players in a trade, just my opinion. 3. When I stated that I did not want to give up any more future 1st round picks in a trade to move up and instead use those picks on areas of need, you stated that you did not trust Bruce to make good selections. My point is that you have no problem giving up first round picks based on that but we all know that depending on the position drafted, there is a higher probability that he would hit on a first rounder as opposed to one in later rounds where we would have to pick. 4. Build through the draft and solidify the trenches and other areas of need. Draft the QB if you get lucky enough to get a top 5 pick the next few years. 5. Sometimes things need to get that bad in order for them to get better. Unfortunately we have an owner who is oblivious and doesn't seem to see that right now. 6. I don't think we should stop talking about what the FO needs to do to build the team right. Because they aren't doing it and it's not worked out any way they have tried in 20+ years. And I don't think I wasn't being respectful or cordial and not sure where you got that I was calling you the enemy. If you took my posts that way, then apologies man, not my intent.

1. No I don't need to let this go. I was 100% on board with that decision back in 2012, even though I knew it was a huge risk. It didn't work out, we lost a franchise QB along with draft picks that could have been used on low risk picks (o-line/d-line) and help re-build the team. 2. If. He could be a bust or the next big thing. We went all in once and got burned. Going all in for Haskins would cost even more picks than the RGIII trade. Huge difference in moving up from #15 to whatever than moving up from #6 to #2. 3. We both agree that Bruce is one of the biggest problems as far as turning this franchise into the Titanic. Again, it goes back to having to move up high enough. Of course this is pure speculation, but lets say it cost us the same as the RGIII trade to move up plus one more additional 1st round pick (So swapping 2019 first round picks and they get our 2019 second round pick, 2020 1st, 2021 1st and 2022 1st). That made me cringe just typing that out.......So you don't trust Bruce with those future draft picks but you trust giving away those picks for him to have to draft legit starters in the second and later rounds at positions of need? If he sucks at drafting and we make it even harder by eliminating a chance at snagging some stud first round talent by giving up 2+ future first round picks, what makes you think he won't screw up the picks in the 2nd round, 3rd round, etc. etc. etc.? What's going to happen when Trent Williams goes down again, along with our other linemen and we are stuck with a patchwork line again. Or we don't have any weapons for him to throw to. List goes on. 4. It's nice to have top players and jersey sales. That goes hand in hand with winning. The only way we are going to get back to that is a complete overhaul of the entire front office and coaching staff, hire team pres and GM that have no ties to the organization and for Dan to sit back and let football people handle it. That isn't going to happen anytime soon. 5. See my #4 - pretty much sums it up. I respect your opinion and thoughts on this topic, I just don't agree with them.