thegreaterbuzzette

2 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

You're right.  I was thinking of some other state, which passed a "health of the mother" clause which some people are trying to paint at "no restriction at all".  

Even as a pro-choicer.....some of those are purposely very vaguely written. A distinction without a difference. 

I believe laws should be clean and clear....to avoid higher court battles. 

2 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Just pointing out, there ARE people who come in to the ER, in labor, who don't know they're pregnant. 

And once in labor, abortion should be off the table. 

2 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

I certainly assume that they're really rare. Just saying that it's possible that SOME women who want an abortion at 8 months, haven't had 6 months to decide, before then. 

At that point, I’m gonna have to say...not an excuse.

2 minutes ago, Larry said:

(I certainly ASSUME that the vast majority of women who want abortions at 8 months, there's something that's happened very recently, that's caused that decision. Although, yeah, no doubt there's some where I would say their reason sucks.)

Like what? Losing your job, finding out you baby daddy has 3 gfs, etc.....still doesn’t sway me

its arguements like these that almost sway me pro-life

2 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Just pointing out, there ARE people who come in to the ER, in labor, who don't know they're pregnant. 

 

I certainly assume that they're really rare. Just saying that it's possible that SOME women who want an abortion at 8 months, haven't had 6 months to decide, before then. 

 

(I certainly ASSUME that the vast majority of women who want abortions at 8 months, there's something that's happened very recently, that's caused that decision. Although, yeah, no doubt there's some where I would say their reason sucks.)

So good you had to say it twice 🙂 ????

9 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

Her body her choice. Is that clear enough?

 

I'm not about to make any decisions other than for myself.

That’s where you lose me. I was with you up til that point. I consider myself quite liberal and pro-choice. But at some point, you’ve made your choice and that is your decision. And at 9 months you’ve already made 2 solid choices:

1 - to have sexual relations that you knew had the risk of pregnancy

2 - to determine you were prego and carry to full term

Unless rape, incest, detriment to mother/child PHYSICAL health, or lack of ability for the baby to medically thrive after birth.....that far along, I can’t support that.

@LadySkinsFan I'm trying to make sure I fully understand your stance so I can respond accurately.

Omitting the frequency belief..... you have no issue with a woman aborting at 9 months for no other reason but choice?

4 minutes ago, twa said:

 

I'm still trying to find out who shot his ass off.

 

No wonder the poor fellow is scared.

I bet it's in the front!

Are we gonna ignore all the keys he's holding too?

33 minutes ago, TryTheBeal! said:

This CC/Buzzette throwdown is magical.

 

Surely the Tailgate is the most enlightened corner of the net.

Not sure how to take that.... 😕

13 minutes ago, visionary said:

 

Probably one where kindergarteners, military recruiters, movie goers, and concert attendees get shot for no reason. 

Now for my non-snarky answer....this is the counter point to banning all guns. The 2 extremes cancel out any common sense.

4 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

 

 

 

A world without gun violence would truly be something new. 

 

 

Actually, I specifically said taking away their driving liscense for a year for the first offense. But besides that, there’s no country better at incarceration than the United States. 

 

 

Yes, there is enough of precedence for this.

 

 

Yup, talking to a wall.

30 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

 

What does that mean?  Anyway, I’ll go back to my original statement. 100 years ago people would have thought it was of the marginal lands of unicorns and fairy dust to communicate with someone who speaks a different language half a world away on an instantaneous basis. 

 

It it turns out all you had to do was try.

The telephones was invented well over 100 years ago, so there were many smart people who already had a plan in mind and were working to make it happen.

your example doesn’t really work....comparing creating something new with removing something already in existence are completely different concepts.

criminalizing gun ownership I believe was your suggestion? Where you housing all these people you are arresting? And the government is seizing our guns some worth well over $1000 just for free? 

18 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

It’s a fact you are more likely to be sexually assaulted by a friend than a stranger.  Having a friend who has a gun doesn’t make you safer.  You’d likely be just as safe with a friend without a gun than a friend with a gun.  Possibly safer because there isn’t a chance of accidental discharge.

 

How many sexual assaults are prevented by a friend with a gun each year? VS just a friend with no gun that the would be assailant thought better than to take two on at a time?

You dance around with facts, stats, and real world fallacies a lot to avoid having a real conversation about what can be done. 

2 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Ok, I mean, don’t get mad at me because your reality is different than reality... there’s nothing in my post that is untrue or factually incorrect.

 

 

@thegreaterbuzzette 

 

I do wonder what sort of response I could have made would make you feel like I have a interest in true conversation or problem solving. I am fine conversing, but I’m not going to change my mind about something based on a string of false premises.

 

Im not sure how making guns illegal wouldn’t help solve the problem of gun violence.

Its raining, so I guess I’ll engage.

my reality is not different then reality. Reality is reality is reality. Everyone’s can be uniquely distinct.

did you read your article? More importantly did you understand it? There was no causation sited, a risk factor is a linked occurrence, nothing more or less. 

The article also only counts a suicide when it is “successful”. 

“About 85% of attempts with a firearm are fatal: that’s a much higher case fatality rate than for nearly every other method. Many of the most widely used suicide attempt methods have case fatality rates below 5%. (See Case Fatality Ratio by Method of Self-Harm.)”

but all all of this is really off topic. 

Now back to your our question about your response to my scenario....pretty much anything besides stating you would be more concerned with your friend sexually assaulting you, would have shown me you were thinking in a way with eyes and ears open. 

But you've made made it very clear you live in fantasy land. 

13 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

Your experience doesn’t meld well with actual studies on the subject though.

 

 

 

 

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/risk/

 

 

 

1)Stop selling guns and ammunition

2)Make it illegal to own a gun

3)Simple possession of the gun similar to a dui. First offense, loose your drivers liscense for a year, ect.

4)possession of a gun while commuting a crime same as the laws are now.

 

Its easy. Except for getting the law to change which would obviously require a repeal of the second ammendment.

 

 

Considering that most sexual assaults are commited by someone you know, your friend with the gun is more likely to assault you than some stranger in the dark. No thanks.

 

Thanks this entire response tells me you have no interest in a true conversation or problem solving. I’m done engaging.

39 minutes ago, Springfield said:

Stop voting republican if you want gun reform.  That’s the lest you can do.

I have. Unfortunately I’ve had to go 3rd party as no Dem recently seems to have sensible policy in mind either. 

37 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

 

Whether you personally watch the news is irrelevant to the conversation we are having.

 

I wasn’t indicting you on a personal level. Americans have a problem.

???? When you imply all, and I rebut, you can’t say I don’t then count. I’m an American, and I know many friends of mine that have also cut the cable news cord.

both sides need to stop saying “anecdotal” evidence doesn’t matter when it doesn’t support your cause. 

Both sides need need to come to the table to compromise. Outlandish and name calling gets this no where. 

48 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

 

Just pointing out one of the problems with trying to use statistics in this debate:. Precise wording is important. You two have already moved from "most shootings" to "most criminal shootings". 

 

Should suicides count in your stats?  I'm pretty sure they account for well over half of gun deaths in the US. How about people shot by law enforcement?  (Not sure how big that category is.)  Accidental discharges?  Cases not prosecuted? (For example, due to self defense?)

I do not believe suicides should count. While I can see a case for it, my experience/education has caused me to believe that once someone has made that decision.....it’s any means available. Would we outlaw bridges or needed medicines right Niagara Falls (witnesses a suicide there)?

justified police or self defense shootings should not count either (and I completely agree there are LEO shootings that are NOT justified all too often. But the thing with stats....you need a hard line on what does and doesn’t count.

accidental discharges, children finding and using - those should count (I also believe manslaughter charges should be pressed again owner for insufficient safety measures)

48 minutes ago, Larry said:

. . . 

 

On the more-discussed topic of mass shootings, I confess I do have the completely unscientific impression that most of the recent mass shootings, the source of the weapons has been either that the shooter purchased them himself, or in many cases, had a friend(s) who had a large number of weapons unsecured. 

 

I'd love to come up with some "low impact" way to get legal gun owners to store their weapons more responsibly. 

100%, see above. Believe the rightful owner should at a minimum be charged with manslaughter. I think having an unsecured gun (or any weapon) in a home with minors is child endangerment/abuse. 

40 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

This is seems to suggest everyone:

 

 

So how do you propose that is done? I don’t believe it is fair to propose a fictitious solution without even having a basic game plan. 

Also, please consider this scenario and answer honestly - 

Yo are 20, in a college town in a lackluster part of town that one would expect a college kid to be able to afford. There’s been 8 violent rapes reported in a 15 mile radius in just as many weeks.... All of them approached at gun point, multiple attackers. A friend offers to meet you at your bus stop after night classes to escort you to your apartment a 10 block walk) they own a gun. Do you turn them down?

The above isn’t to say you are right or wrong, but will be very insightful to your dedication to your opinion. 

3 hours ago, Fergasun said:

What's the point of gun control thread? Gun owners "love" their guns and don't care how many mass shootings occur, so long as they can have their life, liberty, and happiness of being a gun owner. It's always going to be some "other, irresponsible, crazy gun owner" who goes on the rampage. Why should they be punished?

Actually evidence shows the majority of gun owners actually DO want reform and change. Plus the stricter gun control I want wouldn't punish me at all - because I am a responsible and upstanding citizen and gun owner. Now if I started beating on @TheGreatBuzz or writing manifestos about harming others.....I should lose that right. Immediately. 

And private sales should be just as strict as pro.

3 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

Do you think it’s just random chance that it has become constant news fodder? Or perhaps it’s because there is nothing like a little gun violence to get eyes glued to the screen?

 

 

The media covers what we want to see.  

 

 

https://www.bustle.com/p/why-do-we-watch-pimple-popping-videos-turns-out-your-brain-really-enjoys-them-3266028

 

 

No one loves heroin but, then again, a lot of people love heroin.

I've stopped watching news. Was 100% on almost 24/7 in my house. Now, unless it's a political debate that I need to watch to be informed, or weather events....never on.

3 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

But in the end your assumption that “all” the weapons would need to be collected in order to prevent most shootings is false. Most shootings are carried out by people who are currently legally allowed to carry.

So which guns need to be collected and which people need to be banned from owning them?

Also, can you provide the statistic of your last point? I would really be interested to know how many criminal shootings happen by people legally owning/possessing and using a firearm....

31 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

This is one of the arguments in that debate that really triggers me.  (No pun intended.)  

 

As far as I'm aware, in no other debate about a proposed law is the argument that "well, it won't instantly be 100% effective, therefore we cannot even consider it" considered a rational argument.  

 

Somehow, I'm pretty sure that not one person ever suggested that well, people will still rob banks if we make it illegal, so we shouldn't bother.  (And if someone did, they likely would have been committed.)  

Here's the big difference, GUN VIOLENCE is already illegal. I think one would be hard pressed to find someone who disagreed that killing someone in an act of malice is ok. You are equating GUN OWNERSHIP with bank robbery. That is a false comparison.

31 minutes ago, Larry said:

(Although I will admit that I do, from time to time, hear an argument that's pretty similar to that one get used, when the topic is illegal immigration.)

 

Let's stay on topic. My immigration/gun control/abortion/womens right/social views make no sense to people that try to paint me in a box.

31 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Now, this is not to suggest that I support banning all guns.  (Although I could get behind banning certain types of them.  Or maybe not banning, but treating them the way we treat full-auto weapons.)  

So what gun is worse than others? I've noticed most people that make this arguement do not have a firm grasp on types of guns/ammo functionality.

Fully autos are essentially banned outside of specific permits. "Semi auto" opinions only seem to apply when the gun is black and scary looking....the same gun in pink or camo used for hunting seems acceptable.

33 minutes ago, Chew said:

The magazine bans make no sense to me.  As Buzzette said, if anything, it may slow somebody down by a few seconds.  Anyone that's trained to use a weapon, it takes maybe 2 seconds to reload a pistol, 4-5 seconds to reload a rifle. Not to mention, you can get a high-capacity mag or drum pretty easily if you really wanted one, illegal or 
But even then, the whole "mental illness" thing won't catch everyone either.  Sure, that Stoneman shooter kid showed some signs for years and the system failed.  But this guy in VA yesterday, he was probably a normal dude his entire life.  Sometimes things happen to people that cause them to snap, which I imagine is what happened to this dude after he was fired.  It ignited a rage in  him.  I'm sure we will get more info about Craddock's background this weekend, but I doubt he had any red flags that would've popped up in an "extensive" background check, one that includes checking for mental illness issues and possibly even a psych eval.  

You can count me as a gun owner that wants reform.

Not sure if you saw my recent post in the mass shooting thread, but workplace violence is nothing new.

I am interesting to see what we lean about this person and if this was truly out of character. Keep in mind when I say mental health, I don't mean as it relates to background checks. I mean the stigma, lack of resources, lack of support, lack of understanding. It's a systematic issue. Gun violence is a symptom of this, not a cause/effect. 

2 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

 

Doesn't matter.  If there were something, it will never get put into place anyways.  

 

When 20+ children got killed at Sandy Hook and nothing changed, that was the proof that nothing will ever change.  We can all discuss more gun control methods we think should be in place but that is about as useful as shouting at clouds.  The only option is to make sure you are armed to have a chance of surviving.  So make sure you have a reliable weapon and are proficient with it.

 

(honey, can I buy another gun?  You know, for my own safety......)

Someone is a grump this morning. 

VA Beach Shooting - What gun control could have made a difference?

I could see an argument for limiting extended magazines, but one could still have multiple magazines - so may have slowed it down, perhaps?

Or are people suggesting we just somehow collect all the guns from everyone, everywhere? (Which is impossible)

Yet again, the main issue with this one...mental illness. 

I also wanted to add some additional thought here. Workplace violence is older than the "mass shooting" and "domestic terrorism" craze that has become main stream constant news fodder over the past decade +.

This was a topic taught, studied, and stressed in HR curriculum more than the great DISC vs. Myer Briggs debate. Very similar to how flight attendants are actually there for your safety, but the public thinks they are just drink slingers - true HR personnel are versed in contingency plans, escape routes, and signs to look for/report.

The main difference - the constant news coverage. I'm going to see if I can dig up some metrics to compare the occurance rate.

I keep checking to see if anyone is going to start discuss gun control in the other thread, but no one seems to.....

17 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

America loves this sort of thing.

How so?

On 3/25/2019 at 8:15 PM, purbeast said:

And now today I have a little bit of an ear infection.  I'm glad this happened today and not with more dives left lol.  It's nothing crazy bad or anything but I avoided putting my head in the water today at the beaches.  

 

Also damn my wetsuit is funky as ****.  I soaked it in some fresh water with dish soap after reading about it so hopefully that removes the stench a bit.  So far it seems like it did but it's still wet.

I realize I'm a little late to the party...I suffer swimmers ear and I am an avid diver. After every dive, few drops of alcohol in the ears once your are home and done for the day.  Alcohol evaporates quickly and encourages the water left in your ear to do the same.

37 minutes ago, Kosher Ham said:

90% chance of rain. Does not mean that you will get rain in your area. It means 90% of the viewing area. 

 

Stats are funny like that. 

Actually.... https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/marshallshepherd/2015/11/27/do-you-or-your-meteorologist-understand-what-40-chance-of-rain-means/amp/

27 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Assume you mean safe sex. Ok, um, ok, I wish you made that point earlier, because I thought based on what you said you felt most men didn't even know how to practice safe sex, let alone use that as an excuse to get rid of abortion.

 

Your making points that fit if you did better job of making clear where they fit upfront. I'm gonna stop because what I really want to hear about now is what the courts think.

Huh? Sex with protection/safe sex, same thing. What are these semantics you are questioning?