Larry Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 Ooh, now there's a great argument for why we should all just suck it up and watch a thousand people die a month. "I will not permit you to attempt to do anything about this problem, because I have created an imaginary scenario in which I claim that you would complain about something being done." After all, what's a thousand deaths a month, compared to an imaginary scenario in which I imagine that you will complain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 (edited) "I will not permit you to attempt to do anything about this problem, because I have created an imaginary scenario in which I claim that you would complain about something being done."So you would be fine with a minority being denied their constitutional rights because the FBI was suspicious of them...but had been unable to prove anything substantial? Yes or No? Anybody else want to answer that question as well? BTW, I just booked the HellBent for Hollywood Judas Priest Rock Fantady Camp for August...thought you might find that interesting. \mm/ Dude that's awesome. I'm seriously jealous. \mm/ Edited June 13, 2016 by Painkiller 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 After all, what's a thousand deaths a month, compared to an imaginary scenario in which I imagine that you will complain? Population control? :shrug: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcl05 Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 I would be fine with all of us having our "right" to weapons curtailed a bit in the interest of reducing the 35000 gun deaths that happen unnecessarily each year in this country. I would have far more respect for the pro gun community if they offered any actual ideas about how we should deal with this epidemic. 35000 gun deaths. Hundreds of mass shootings every year. It's a problem. A huge one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 So you would be fine with a minority being denied their constitutional rights because the FBI was suspicious of them...but had been unable to prove anything substantial? Patriot Act anyone? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 So you would be fine with a minority being denied their constitutional rights because the FBI was suspicious of them...but had been unable to prove anything substantial? Yes or No? I would be fine with anybody (not just minorities, but nice try to deflect) being denied a right which has the potential do kill dozens of people, if there was a good reason. (No, not just any whim. But no, evidence sufficient to convict someone of a crime isn't required, either.) (Was there enough evidence, in this case, to deny this particular person? I've got no clue. I certainly haven't seen any.) (I also might take into account the weapon he's trying to buy. I might trust someone with a break-action shotgun, who I wouldn't trust with an AR-15.) ---------- Now, your turn: Does the government have the right to tell people that they can't get on an airplane, without convicting them of a crime? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 I would have far more respect for the pro gun community if they offered any actual ideas about how we should deal with this epidemic. We would have far more respect for the other side if they would actually listen to our ideas instead of dismissing them outright because they do not involve further restrictions on our constitutional rights. After Sandy Hook the NRA made legitimately reasonable suggestions and they were laughed down as absurd. Armed security in schools? No thank you....not interested. Think of the children!! They might need an emotional "safe place" after seeing that retired cop walking the halls with his evil gun strapped to his side. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcl05 Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 (edited) We would have far more respect for the other side if they would actually listen to our ideas instead of dismissing them outright because they do not involve further restrictions on our constitutional rights. After Sandy Hook the NRA made legitimately reasonable suggestions and they were laughed down as absurd. Armed security in schools? No thank you....not interested. Think of the children!! They might need an emotional "safe place" after seeing that retired cop walking the halls with his evil gun strapped to his side. Right. The NRA's solution is to try and make sure mass shooters get shot themselves, faster. That would be great. You know what would be better? For them not to start shooting in the first place. Edited June 13, 2016 by bcl05 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 (edited) We would have far more respect for the other side if they would actually listen to our ideas instead of dismissing them outright because they do not involve further restrictions on our constitutional rights. After Sandy Hook the NRA made legitimately reasonable suggestions and they were laughed down as absurd. Armed security in schools? No thank you....not interested. Think of the children!! They might need an emotional "safe place" after seeing that retired cop walking the halls with his evil gun strapped to his side. You're darned right they did. They got Georgia to pass laws allowing guns into schools, government buildings, churches, airports, and bars. Please, tell me more about the NRA and their reasonable desire to do something to reduce gun violence. You want to know another reasonable compromise? Require background checks on all gun sales. Supported by 90% of Americans, and 80% of NRA members. Absolutely zero chance of even being brought to a vote. Because the NRA won't allow it. Edited June 13, 2016 by Larry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 With all this respectful discussion between the two sides, I'm amazed we can't come to an agreement. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 Right. The NRA's solution is to try and make sure mass shooters get shot themselves, faster. That would be great. You know what would be better? For them not to start shooting in the first place. Agreed, but we can't stop them. Bad people do bad things. Evil exists in this world. Making more potential victims out of good people will not fix the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 Right. The NRA's solution is to try and make sure mass shooters get shot themselves, faster. That would be great. You know what would be better? For them not to start shooting in the first place. Now, I will observe that it's impossible to prevent any of these things from ever happening. (And myself? I'd oppose efforts to even try it.) I do believe in trying to accommodate both safety and freedom. And I don't think it's possible to make things like this impossible. I think that any attempt to do so, would be going way too far. I think that it's reasonable to take some steps to try to reduce them. That, I think, is the reasonable balance. Agreed, but we can't stop them. Bad people do bad things. Evil exists in this world. Making more potential victims out of good people will not fix the problem. But, everywhere else in the civilized world, bad people do bad things with 1/10 the deaths. This pompous announcement that it's impossible to prevent all evil is probably the lamest attempt I've seen, in this thread, to try to justify demanding that we must do nothing. (Although I assume that something stupider will come along, shortly.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 Now, your turn: Does the government have the right to tell people that they can't get on an airplane, without convicting them of a crime? On mere suspicion alone? No Without a substantial reason to deny someone.. you should not deny them. I'm not one who thinks that the evil nature of some people can be controlled by legislation though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 (edited) We would have far more respect for the other side if they would actually listen to our ideas instead of dismissing them outright because they do not involve further restrictions on our constitutional rights. After Sandy Hook the NRA made legitimately reasonable suggestions and they were laughed down as absurd. Armed security in schools? No thank you....not interested. Think of the children!! They might need an emotional "safe place" after seeing that retired cop walking the halls with his evil gun strapped to his side. Out of curiosity, who laughed at armed security guards in schools? Lots of schools have them. I guess some people might not like the idea, but it certainly doesn't seem to be an idea that a large number of people are actually laughing at because lots of schools have them. Edited June 13, 2016 by PeterMP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 Larry I never said do nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bozo the kKklown Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 on point. Especially since its gay people now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 (edited) Is it a slippery slope to say an individual the US government can prove has sworn allegiance to a terrorists organization bent on causing the US harm should not be able to purchase a firearm? Is that protected by the first amendment or something? Ya, it's just talk until they actually commit a mass murder, though what is the point of a watch list if we cannot factor that in to things like firearm purchases? I know I'm not the first person to say that today, but I can still support AR-15s being available to the public and scratch my head on this question. The mass murder situation is a multi-prong issue, and I'm really getting tired of the idea it's too complex to say we should do anything concerning further regulating firearm purchases. I, too, want to know how much ammo he used. Wasn't the idea thrown around to track ammo purchases as well so red flags can be set off? I would support registering ammunition and putting caps on the amount people can have at one time. There is a happy medium here, it does not need to be all or nothing. Edited June 13, 2016 by Renegade7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 Out of curiosity, who laughed at armed security guards in schools? Lots of schools have them. Sure they do. Many of the anti gun crowd....not necessarily in this thread...teachers, administrators, politicians, thought it was a dumb idea when the NRA presented it. The problem is that many will not concede that the answer to our mass shooting problem could be more guns in the hands of good people. Every mass shooting has occurred where the shooters didn't expect they would be confronted with gunfire themselves. At least not right away. I don't want to hunker down and wait for the police. I want to protect myself and others. I want to save people's lives if I can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renegade7 Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 (edited) What are you Rambo now? Most people didn't laugh at more security guards or police in schools. They were more likely appalled at the proposal to arm teachers and administrators in school and expect them to respond to a situations that they are not trained for. Edited June 13, 2016 by Renegade7 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcl05 Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 There was an armed uniformed cop at Pulse last night. 50 died. 53 injured. No one ever expects a mass shooting. Even the good guys with the guns. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 There was an armed uniformed cop at Pulse last night. 50 died. 53 injured. No one ever expects a mass shooting. Even the good guys with the guns. Agreed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 (edited) Sure they do. Many of the anti gun crowd....not necessarily in this thread...teachers, administrators, politicians, thought it was a dumb idea when the NRA presented it. The problem is that many will not concede that the answer to our mass shooting problem could be more guns in the hands of good people. Every mass shooting has occurred where the shooters didn't expect they would be confronted with gunfire themselves. At least not right away. I don't want to hunker down and wait for the police. I want to protect myself and others. I want to save people's lives if I can. Well, there might be people that were against it, but I don't think there were people actually laughing. It is a pretty common thing going back years to have some sort of armed security at schools. This isn't really true. Columbine had an armed guard. At the shooting in the Oregon college, there was somebody on campus with a gun not too far from where the shooting started. http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/10/02/3708410/good-guy-with-gun-was-on-ucc-campus-at-time-of-massacre/ I seriously doubted the guy in this case knew whether there was somebody with a gun in this night club or not, but current understanding of the situation is that there was a police officer on the scene. He received fire pretty much right away. And seriously I doubt he knew if there was private security with a gun in the club (even if it was just a manger/owner). And that's fine that you want to have that instinct, but the question is does it really do any good. What is the probability that the person with the gun on the scene is going to be in the right position to do any good? And if you have lots of people with guns on the scene, how likely does it become that you have other issues where people don't know each other and end up shooting other good guys thinking they were shooters? And how much training are these random people with guns going to have? Are we going to end up with more dead innocent people or fewer? Edited June 13, 2016 by PeterMP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander PK Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 What are you Rambo now? Most people didn't laugh at more security guards or police in schools. They were more likely appealed at the proposal to arm teachers and administrators in school and expect them to respond to a situations that they are not trained for. So train them. Who said not to train them? Not the NRA. I don't advocate anyone being handed a gun without training. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 There was an armed uniformed cop at Pulse last night. 50 died. 53 injured. No one ever expects a mass shooting. Even the good guys with the guns. a is very different than a few, especially if they are easily identified by a shooter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bacon Posted June 13, 2016 Share Posted June 13, 2016 I side with Renegade on ammo limits and registration being a more productive track than the guns themselves. Why does a civilian need enough ammo for his AR-15 to take down 100 people? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts