CSNbbs

Full Version: Gun control
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
What measures are being pushed that would have prevented or moderated the recent mass shootings?

The shooter in Indianapolis passed background checks, and bought the guns last last year, which would seem to negate any sort of waiting period extension that might be suggested.

I would be in favor of any measure that would actually stop mass shootings, but I think even repeal of the Second Amendment and confiscation of all guns would not do that.

I found it humorous that somebody said Al Capone would afraid to walk the streets of Chicago now.

The Dems seem to think that inserting the words “common sense” makes it all OK. Well, I am in favor of common sense tax laws, and common sense immigration laws. Always have been.
I see that 52 people have read post #1 and so far nobody has an answer to my opening question.

This article says Indiana has a red flag law, so that didn't work either.

Still waiting to hear what the "common sense" solutions are.
(04-18-2021 06:54 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]so far nobody has an answer to my opening question.

I think that is because nothing new has been suggested.

Up to 92 views now.
It looks like one of the three victims in Austin over the weekend was a UNT football signee.

And OO, there are plenty of reasonable arguments out there for programs that might work. Try googling ways to prevent mass shootings if you want to read up on some ideas.

Here's one for you.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2...shootings/

And BTW, this board is rather dead so I wouldn't fret if you're not getting many responses. Most of those 92 views are probably you refreshing the page.
I don't think there is much of anything regarding gun control laws that would change this. They don't pretend to for the reasons you mention and others.

I think the answer involves more effective policing/ stiffer punishments for unlawful possession of a gun. It is beyond ignorant to suggest that laws turning more current legal gun owners into illegal owners will have any impact on illegal owners.

I think other answers have nothing to do with guns, but instead with people.
reduce/eliminate the POLITICAL factors that lead to concentrated poverty and desperation on top of desperation
increase access to BH without the stigma
END these 'everybody wins' sports (sports is where in my experience, most people learn to value people who are different)
End this obsession that 'education' leads to success. It CAN, but is not an assurance nor even a requirement.

this is not an exhaustive list of course
(04-19-2021 10:43 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ]It looks like one of the three victims in Austin over the weekend was a UNT football signee.

And OO, there are plenty of reasonable arguments out there for programs that might work. Try googling ways to prevent mass shootings if you want to read up on some ideas.

Here's one for you.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2...shootings/

And BTW, this board is rather dead so I wouldn't fret if you're not getting many responses. Most of those 92 views are probably you refreshing the page.

maybe I don't know how the "views" count thing works, but now it is at 138, while I have been in the other room watching the closing arguments in the Floyd case.

Certainly three of those have been me posting follow ups. One was you making your post. I don't know where the others came from.

But in any case, thanks for your response, even though you did not answer the question. I read the link. Not much there in specifics, and nothing relating to any legislation pending in congress. Which is kind of my point - nothing new is being called for, just more of the same. Perhaps that is why we continue to have mass shootings.

My question is what is being proposed that would prevent shootings like the one in Indianapolis? What would you say, if you were to answer that question?

I don't fret about the lack of responses - it is refreshing to be able to post my views without the negativity.
Then try this article. I think the last regulation would have stopped the Indianapolis shooting?

https://www.latimes.com/projects/if-gun-...e-enacted/
I haven't spent much time on this forum of late, but I check from time to time. I haven't responded to this previously because I don't really see the point in OO's question.

Quick reply here only to say... has there been ANYBODY here that has suggested that there are common-sense gun control laws which would prevent EVERY mass shooting were they to be enacted? Certainly there are outliers/exceptions for every piece of legislation.

I'm certain that OO isn't suggesting that any new law is pointless if it doesn't prevent every future mass shooting. It seems worthwhile to achieve even a 10% reduction if possible.

I don't know the particulars of this shooting. Whether or not currently proposed laws would have prevented this specific shooting doesn't make those proposed laws worthless, IMO.
(04-19-2021 10:43 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ]It looks like one of the three victims in Austin over the weekend was a UNT football signee.

And OO, there are plenty of reasonable arguments out there for programs that might work. Try googling ways to prevent mass shootings if you want to read up on some ideas.

Here's one for you.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2...shootings/

And BTW, this board is rather dead so I wouldn't fret if you're not getting many responses. Most of those 92 views are probably you refreshing the page.

That link is either ignorant as hell or simply dishonest in at least one major aspect. The comment about legislating against military style firearms simply glosses over the *fact* that the firearms used by military and their equivalent are already heavily proscribed.

Based on the prevalence of the continued and constant mischaracterization as such, my determination is that an honest debate about the subject is impossible.
(04-19-2021 11:37 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ]Then try this article. I think the last regulation would have stopped the Indianapolis shooting?

https://www.latimes.com/projects/if-gun-...e-enacted/

You must not have read the link in Post #2. Indiana has a red flag law.
(04-19-2021 01:00 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]I haven't spent much time on this forum of late, but I check from time to time. I haven't responded to this previously because I don't really see the point in OO's question.

Quick reply here only to say... has there been ANYBODY here that has suggested that there are common-sense gun control laws which would prevent EVERY mass shooting were they to be enacted? Certainly there are outliers/exceptions for every piece of legislation.

I'm certain that OO isn't suggesting that any new law is pointless if it doesn't prevent every future mass shooting. It seems worthwhile to achieve even a 10% reduction if possible.

I don't know the particulars of this shooting. Whether or not currently proposed laws would have prevented this specific shooting doesn't make those proposed laws worthless, IMO.

Agree with your last statement, but at the same time, if they don't prevent at least some shootings, what is their value? The impetus for new laws is supposedly to prevent future occurrences.

To broaden the question, it is not clear that any proposed laws would stop any of the shootings.

In case after case, the current gun laws, enacted to prevent mass shootings, did not stop mass shootings.

It certainly is not clear that any of the proposed laws would result in a 10% reduction. How do you measure shootings that don't happen, anyway?

Now, I am sure some people want to pursue the myth that I and other right wingers don't want any laws at all. No true. But before I go all in on generic gun control, I want specifics. Sadly lacking, it seems.

Ironically, I am no longer a gun owner, having gifted them all to my nephew, a Biden-voting Houston resident, who needs them more than I do. He has been carjacked, burgled, and attacked on the street - in the Rice U. neighborhood. No, I did not do a background check on him.
(04-19-2021 01:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Based on the prevalence of the continued and constant mischaracterization as such, my determination is that an honest debate about the subject is impossible.

I never expected an honest debate, but I did want an honest explanation of what they thought more of everything would accomplish.
BTW, "views" up to 206. I have been in town at the bank, pharmacy, and Jimmy John's.
(04-19-2021 01:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-19-2021 01:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Based on the prevalence of the continued and constant mischaracterization as such, my determination is that an honest debate about the subject is impossible.

I never expected an honest debate, but I did want an honest explanation of what they thought more of everything would accomplish.

The bolded is a good example of why you don't get responses to your daily posts. It's not so much that we can't come up with an answer to your queries, but more so that the queries are presented in bad faith. They are usually associated with comments such as "the leftists here will ignore this" or "they will put their heads in the sand". You aren't looking for a discussion. You are looking to belittle the other side. No thanks. Perhaps there are others who wish to engage you on this level but I consider it, for the most part, to be a waste of time.
(04-19-2021 01:22 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-19-2021 01:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-19-2021 01:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Based on the prevalence of the continued and constant mischaracterization as such, my determination is that an honest debate about the subject is impossible.

I never expected an honest debate, but I did want an honest explanation of what they thought more of everything would accomplish.

The bolded is a good example of why you don't get responses to your daily posts. It's not so much that we can't come up with an answer to your queries, but more so that the queries are presented in bad faith. They are usually associated with comments such as "the leftists here will ignore this" or "they will put their heads in the sand". You aren't looking for a discussion. You are looking to belittle the other side. No thanks. Perhaps there are others who wish to engage you on this level but I consider it, for the most part, to be a waste of time.

After weeks of leftists "ignoring this", I am faulted because I say they will "ignore this"? Seems like I said nothing but the truth.

But to an extent you are right - I was not looking for a discussion. I was looking for an explanation. Still don't have it.
(04-19-2021 01:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-19-2021 01:22 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-19-2021 01:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-19-2021 01:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Based on the prevalence of the continued and constant mischaracterization as such, my determination is that an honest debate about the subject is impossible.

I never expected an honest debate, but I did want an honest explanation of what they thought more of everything would accomplish.

The bolded is a good example of why you don't get responses to your daily posts. It's not so much that we can't come up with an answer to your queries, but more so that the queries are presented in bad faith. They are usually associated with comments such as "the leftists here will ignore this" or "they will put their heads in the sand". You aren't looking for a discussion. You are looking to belittle the other side. No thanks. Perhaps there are others who wish to engage you on this level but I consider it, for the most part, to be a waste of time.

After weeks of leftists "ignoring this", I am faulted because I say they will "ignore this"? Seems like I said nothing but the truth.

But to an extent you are right - I was not looking for a discussion. I was looking for an explanation. Still don't have it.

As one of the two or three leftists that you would have expected an response from, my assumption is that you consider my posts here as being riddled with dishonesty. Why would I interact with your topics if that's your position? Perhaps there is another forum full of honest leftists with whom you could interact if you consider the leftists here to be generally dishonest.
(04-19-2021 02:10 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-19-2021 01:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-19-2021 01:22 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-19-2021 01:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-19-2021 01:05 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]Based on the prevalence of the continued and constant mischaracterization as such, my determination is that an honest debate about the subject is impossible.

I never expected an honest debate, but I did want an honest explanation of what they thought more of everything would accomplish.

The bolded is a good example of why you don't get responses to your daily posts. It's not so much that we can't come up with an answer to your queries, but more so that the queries are presented in bad faith. They are usually associated with comments such as "the leftists here will ignore this" or "they will put their heads in the sand". You aren't looking for a discussion. You are looking to belittle the other side. No thanks. Perhaps there are others who wish to engage you on this level but I consider it, for the most part, to be a waste of time.

After weeks of leftists "ignoring this", I am faulted because I say they will "ignore this"? Seems like I said nothing but the truth.

But to an extent you are right - I was not looking for a discussion. I was looking for an explanation. Still don't have it.

As one of the two or three leftists that you would have expected an response from, my assumption is that you consider my posts here as being riddled with dishonesty. Why would I interact with your topics if that's your position? Perhaps there is another forum full of honest leftists with whom you could interact if you consider the leftists here to be generally dishonest.

On the contrary, I respect your posts as being very honest. FTR, I think the same of Lad and Big. But to give some perspective, I regard Bernie Sanders as being very honest - and very wrong. And very unwilling to listen to me.

Nobody here, left or right, is dishonest, except maybe when they are fooling themselves.
(04-19-2021 02:21 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-19-2021 02:10 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-19-2021 01:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-19-2021 01:22 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-19-2021 01:17 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]I never expected an honest debate, but I did want an honest explanation of what they thought more of everything would accomplish.

The bolded is a good example of why you don't get responses to your daily posts. It's not so much that we can't come up with an answer to your queries, but more so that the queries are presented in bad faith. They are usually associated with comments such as "the leftists here will ignore this" or "they will put their heads in the sand". You aren't looking for a discussion. You are looking to belittle the other side. No thanks. Perhaps there are others who wish to engage you on this level but I consider it, for the most part, to be a waste of time.

After weeks of leftists "ignoring this", I am faulted because I say they will "ignore this"? Seems like I said nothing but the truth.

But to an extent you are right - I was not looking for a discussion. I was looking for an explanation. Still don't have it.

As one of the two or three leftists that you would have expected an response from, my assumption is that you consider my posts here as being riddled with dishonesty. Why would I interact with your topics if that's your position? Perhaps there is another forum full of honest leftists with whom you could interact if you consider the leftists here to be generally dishonest.

On the contrary, I respect your posts as being very honest. FTR, I think the same of Lad and Big. But to give some perspective, I regard Bernie Sanders as being very honest - and very wrong. And very unwilling to listen to me.

Nobody here, left or right, is dishonest, except maybe when they are fooling themselves.

Got it. I'm trying to square that with "I never expected an honest debate"...
(04-19-2021 02:25 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-19-2021 02:21 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-19-2021 02:10 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-19-2021 01:45 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-19-2021 01:22 PM)Rice93 Wrote: [ -> ]The bolded is a good example of why you don't get responses to your daily posts. It's not so much that we can't come up with an answer to your queries, but more so that the queries are presented in bad faith. They are usually associated with comments such as "the leftists here will ignore this" or "they will put their heads in the sand". You aren't looking for a discussion. You are looking to belittle the other side. No thanks. Perhaps there are others who wish to engage you on this level but I consider it, for the most part, to be a waste of time.

After weeks of leftists "ignoring this", I am faulted because I say they will "ignore this"? Seems like I said nothing but the truth.

But to an extent you are right - I was not looking for a discussion. I was looking for an explanation. Still don't have it.

As one of the two or three leftists that you would have expected an response from, my assumption is that you consider my posts here as being riddled with dishonesty. Why would I interact with your topics if that's your position? Perhaps there is another forum full of honest leftists with whom you could interact if you consider the leftists here to be generally dishonest.

On the contrary, I respect your posts as being very honest. FTR, I think the same of Lad and Big. But to give some perspective, I regard Bernie Sanders as being very honest - and very wrong. And very unwilling to listen to me.

Nobody here, left or right, is dishonest, except maybe when they are fooling themselves.

Got it. I'm trying to square that with "I never expected an honest debate"...

Go back to post #12. I was replying to someone who used the phrase "honest debate". Focus on the word "debate", not the word "honest", as in "I never expected a debate", which would have been a better way to say what I thought. Why would I expect a debate of any kind when you guys were not posting here anymore? But I did hope for an explanation of what gun control policies you guys thought would result in less shootings and why. Still waiting.
(04-19-2021 01:07 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]
(04-19-2021 11:37 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: [ -> ]Then try this article. I think the last regulation would have stopped the Indianapolis shooting?

https://www.latimes.com/projects/if-gun-...e-enacted/

You must not have read the link in Post #2. Indiana has a red flag law.

This video explains why the Indiana red flag law didn't work. Apparently the red flag laws greatly vary from state to state and Indiana's law has some shortcomings which really don't make it very effective.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmGG_VJ5Z4Y
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Reference URL's