Another shooting today!!

[Justafan]

3 hours ago, Bink said:

Are these kinds of events bad enough that we are even capable of talking about our so called sacred ideals? Is some of what irish proposed even reasonable? I can't believe you even used the word compromise. You talk about people getting pissed off--why is that? 

 

I'm tired of gun owners refusing to be adults in the room who will not talk about guns. I've said over and over again that my position is that people like you should be leading the charge in determining what kind of gun laws will work to prevent this crime--but thinking about guns is not on the table. Researching them is not on the table. That's insanity. 

 

Freedom and sacred ideals. The laws of this land used to let us own people. Laws change as our society faces and addresses new problems. Can we all admit the constitution was drafted by men trying to solve the problems of their time? Can we now be men and try to solve the problem of ours? 

 

If asked many gun owners--can you draw a line between the weapons you need for self defense and hunting? Does that line ever stop at military grade weapons? Can you describe a situation where someone actually needs this specific type of gun? 

 

Notice here how I haven't called for banning anything. All I'm asking here is for gun owners to be open minded and join the conversation. I've yet to meet very view who will. 

 

I think you have me wrong here. I'm completely fine with research. I'm fine with most proposals that don't restrict the common person from obtaining and using a firearms.

 

I'm even open to banning get the most egregious weapons that people have a problem with, even though I think it's a mistake.

 

It's when people propose silly restrictions like only being able to own a gun for hunting, putting together a packet that takes anywhere from 6 months to two years to complete, or requiring character references to buy freaking shotgun that I tell them it's not working for me.

 

Asking for all or nothing solutions don't make you the adults in the room, it just makes you the other extreme to the debate.

 

I also don't oppose gun bans based on the 2nd amendment, though it certainly strengthens my position, but instead because I believe it's the right thing to do.

 

I will never ever be in a position where someone can come into my home, do harm to my family, and I am powerless to stop it. Frankly, I could care less if you get that or not because it's the one item that is non negotiable from my perspective.

 

The AR-15 ban thing is tricky. Personally, it wouldn't bother me if they banned them. Id feel pretty good going against any of these whack jobs carrying an ar-15 with me just with my .22 but that's not the point.  People want them, for whatever reason, and you don't have the right take that from them because you think the world would be better off without it.

 

many people think the world would be better without cigarettes, alcohol, video games, and pornography but luckily for all the people who enjoy those things, they don't get to decide how those people live... And neither do you.

[Justafan]

Sorry for the Grammer errors. I'm on my phone.

[OILERMAN]

6 minutes ago, Justafan said:

 

The AR-15 ban thing is tricky. Personally, it wouldn't bother me if they banned them. Id feel pretty good going against any of these whack jobs carrying an ar-15 with me just with my .22 but that's not the point.  People want them, for whatever reason, and you don't have the right take that from them because you think the world would be better off without it.

 

Sure people do, it just needs to be passed through congress, lots of dangerous things are illegal 

[Justafan]

4 hours ago, Starkiller said:

Compromise? Is that a joke? Compromise with who? 

 

Democrats have been trying to find a compromise on gun control for years. It’s the NRA Party that refuses to compromise on anything. 

Come, on.  We're not all hardline NRA nutjobs.  Painting everyone with the same brush is exactly what makes people tune you out.

[Justafan]

6 minutes ago, OILERMAN said:

Sure people do, it just needs to be passed through congress, lots of dangerous things are illegal 

And good luck getting it through.

[Starkiller]

2 minutes ago, Justafan said:

Come, on.  We're not all hardline NRA nutjobs.  Painting everyone with the same brush is exactly what makes people tune you out.

The GOP is absolutely hardline NRA nutjobs. Thus my “NRA Party”quip.

[Justafan]

Just now, Starkiller said:

The GOP is absolutely hardline NRA nutjobs.

And then you wonder why they tell you to kick rocks when you want to work on reasonable compromises.

[Starkiller]

6 minutes ago, Justafan said:

And then you wonder why they tell you to kick rocks when you want to work on reasonable compromises.

It’s because they are in the employ of the NRA...

[Justafan]

8 minutes ago, Starkiller said:

It’s because they are in the employ of the NRA...

You are grossly overestimating the pockets of the NRA.

[Starkiller]

2 hours ago, Justafan said:

You are grossly overestimating the pockets of the NRA.

I’m not. The NRA spent tens of millions on campaign donations, lobbying, and various other political activities during the 2016 campaign. 

 

But more than money, Republicans know that their success depends on the support of the NRA. Piss off the NRA and they attack you and prop up your next primary opponent.

[Mythos27]

17 minutes ago, Justafan said:

You are grossly overestimating the pockets of the NRA.

It's not the pockets, it's the influence. Any politician that doesn't toe the NRA line lands in their cross-hairs. Republicans can't go against the NRA and win, that tells you everything.

[TitanDuckFan]

27 minutes ago, Justafan said:

You are grossly overestimating the pockets of the NRA.

That's the meme talking.  The NRA's money isn't a pimple on the ass of Big Pharma, the Unions, The Lawyers etc.

But it's not about the money, it's about the votes.

The part they can't grasp is the fact that fighting for gun rights has coalesced the largest single-issue voting block in modern history.

 

The echoes of the '94 mid-terms are still reverberating in the halls of congress, over what most believe was the last AWB.  The Dems had controlled at least one house of congress for the 50 years prior to '94.

They lost both houses after passing the AWB in the summer of '94.

 

And they still have no answer for the fact that as gun sales have increased over the last two decades, crime has dropped.  That voting block has done nothing but get bigger.

Edited February 18, 2018 by TitanDuckFan

[begooode]

TDuck is a fucking lying through implication clown.  hilarious,...

 

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/01/17/gun-control-laws-werent-primary-reason-dems-lost-in-1994

 

While the '94 election proved Americans wanted Democrats out of congressional power (more than 50 Democratic seats were lost), it's less clear if the weapons ban, or any one issue, was the primary reason for their loss.

"This is a mythology that has developed," says Philip Klinkner, who edited a book about the '94 elections. "That narrative stretches things way too far."

 

The truth, political scientists say, is that it can be attributed to a combination of factors, and the "assault weapons" ban was just one of several controversial votes that led to the loss.

[IsntLifeFunny]

1 hour ago, OILERMAN said:

Sure people do, it just needs to be passed through congress, lots of dangerous things are illegal 

It would have to pass Congress and the Supreme Court. A new ban would face different challenges than the last one, a lot more actually. 

[Bink]

3 hours ago, Justafan said:

I think you have me wrong here. I'm completely fine with research. I'm fine with most proposals that don't restrict the common person from obtaining and using a firearms.

 

I'm even open to banning get the most egregious weapons that people have a problem with, even though I think it's a mistake.

 

It's when people propose silly restrictions like only being able to own a gun for hunting, putting together a packet that takes anywhere from 6 months to two years to complete, or requiring character references to buy freaking shotgun that I tell them it's not working for me.

 

Asking for all or nothing solutions don't make you the adults in the room, it just makes you the other extreme to the debate.

 

I also don't oppose gun bans based on the 2nd amendment, though it certainly strengthens my position, but instead because I believe it's the right thing to do.

 

I will never ever be in a position where someone can come into my home, do harm to my family, and I am powerless to stop it. Frankly, I could care less if you get that or not because it's the one item that is non negotiable from my perspective.

 

The AR-15 ban thing is tricky. Personally, it wouldn't bother me if they banned them. Id feel pretty good going against any of these whack jobs carrying an ar-15 with me just with my .22 but that's not the point.  People want them, for whatever reason, and you don't have the right take that from them because you think the world would be better off without it.

 

many people think the world would be better without cigarettes, alcohol, video games, and pornography but luckily for all the people who enjoy those things, they don't get to decide how those people live... And neither do you.

A lot of people feel like this and yet as a stance for the Republican party you'd be viewed extremely liberal. 

 

I'd say there is a lot of legislation we can probably agree on. 

 

1) If we are really trying to stop these shootings, for example, make it illegal to purchase any kind of gun until you are 21, not 18. Give people a view years out of high school to become reasonable human beings and separate them from that environment. Make it so you can access guns if you are involved in the service or police training, but if you are just an average kid, you get guns through parental access at a range, not buying them. Would you be okay with this one? 

 

2) Strengthen the background check system. We need to stop scapegoating mental health in general and track the kinds of crimes and mental health issues that make you violence. The guy that shot up a church had a previous domestic assault on his record the Air Force failed to register. We need heavy penalties on organizations that fail to report violent crimes. I'd also say it's fair that if you are found guilty of domestic abuse or child abuse at any point by a court of law you lose the privilege to have a gun. 

 

3) Lift the ban on researching gun violence. That's bullshit and bush league in a civilized country with this many guns. I'm not going to get into this one beyond this, but I think the idea that most people who own guns are responsible and sane is pretty far from the truth. Mixed bag like everything else.

 

4) Address the weapon classification system. I don't think you should have to have a letter of recommendation or anything like that to get a handgun or a shotgun. It's not unreasonable that if we're going to allow people to purchase military grade weapons you have to go through an extra hoop to get them, especially the first time. It should be harder to purchase and modify these guns. I'm not going to advocate for a ban here (although personally I think a ban should be considered). 

 

5) Incentivize responsible gun ownership. Have more investment in public schools. Hold gun communities accountable for their rhetoric. 

 

6) Fight against the culture that created this mess. It's not because of the liberal media or because parenting has gone soft or because Jesus is out of schools. It is amazing that people actually believe that causes radicalism. Truthfully, now that this kind of shooting is in our natural zeitgeist, the door that has been opened cannot be closed. We need to address getting it out of our cultural ideology and address gun culture itself, toxic masculinity, and fear mongering. Not sure how we do that aside from education. 

 

Here's how I think we can take some steps against the media, in passing what I would call the "don't make them famous" law: 

 

a. Mandatory cool down period. No using the image of the shooter for 30 days.

b. The shooter is not named for a set period time. Ban reporting the details of the shooter (let's just say for the sake of simplicity 30 days). 

c. Limit what the media can report for several days. Details related to safety only. Names of victims through local news. Stop making money of the stories of the victims, at least in the immediate aftermath. 

d. Limit the way it can be reported on. Ban the media from throwing up comparative graphics or comparing shootings for a set amount of time. 

 

I think if we can get these stories out of the media, stop fetishizing these killings, and control the narrative we can maybe start getting this out of the national mindset. We have to address this ideology head on and hold the media responsibility for how we view this in the immediate aftermath of a shooting. 

 

Edited February 18, 2018 by Bink