(08-06-2019 05:33 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  I never said Walmart was negligent. I’m just surprised, that there wasn’t security or a visible police presence in the area when officials had to know there would be large crowds. Heck, there is armed security at Rice games with fewer people.

And there have been such incidents in shopping malls to add to Tang’s list of “viable targets”, so a big box store should not have been outside the thinking of those responsible for security planning.

But at any sporting event, you run the risk of 'passions being inflamed' by a fan. Same thing at a bar --- except replace 'fan' with 'drunk'. There are other things going on inherent to those activities that just arent seemingly present at a Walmart, or Target, or Costco.

Im not making the case of 'no negligence', they may very well be found as such; just that the lack of guards doesnt seemingly cross a norm.

One thing you can take to the bank though --- I will bet my bottom dollar that Walmart faces no less than 70 plaintiffs. El Paso is a plaintiff attorney's paradise......

(08-06-2019 06:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 04:02 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 03:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 02:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 02:08 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Wow. That seems pretty problematic. I wonder if Walmart will be subject to any lawsuits for what seems like incredibly inadequate (? zero) security.

I dont think there is any question over suits -- anyone can sue anyone else for anything.

The issue is whether Walmart is liable. Do you think they were negligent in not having armed security? If so, what size of company is 'required' to provide armed security? In your mind, is, say, an establishment the size of a Luby's cafeteria required to have armed security?

Sorry I dont think the answer to that is so cut and dried as you might make it out to be at first blush.

I'm in the same boat. Not sure why Tomball thinks a Wal-Mart on tax free day needs the same type of security presence as a popular bar area on a Saturday night. The key isn't that it was an area where a lot of people congregate, but an area where a lot of drunk/under the influence people congregate.

I would understand if Wal-Mart positioned a security guard to deter thefts on a busy day. But I wouldn't expect that security guard to be armed.

Umm, because there are more people in a confined area?

So I guess you ate saying security should only be provided inareas that serve alcohol? Got it! Ban alcohol.

Oh wait....we tried that with less than outstanding results.

You do know we severely restrict the consumption and production of alcohol, including limiting where it can be sold, when it can sold, how old you can be to buy it, when you can use it, etc, right? Not all regulations surrounding it are great (I personally believe we would benefit from a lower drinking age), but certain regulations make sense. Like how people can be held personally liable if they overserve someone.

Regulations are one thing and can be debated. Bans or prohibitions are another. As has been proven many times over, bans don’t work. Evil/crazy will find a way around those as was the case with Prohibition and firearms bans (see discussion/data above regarding effectiveness of gun bans.)

Ans thanks for the condescending “You do know ...” preamble. Did you read what I wrote? See, two can play that worthless game.

(08-06-2019 06:43 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 06:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 04:02 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 03:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 02:33 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I dont think there is any question over suits -- anyone can sue anyone else for anything.

The issue is whether Walmart is liable. Do you think they were negligent in not having armed security? If so, what size of company is 'required' to provide armed security? In your mind, is, say, an establishment the size of a Luby's cafeteria required to have armed security?

Sorry I dont think the answer to that is so cut and dried as you might make it out to be at first blush.

I'm in the same boat. Not sure why Tomball thinks a Wal-Mart on tax free day needs the same type of security presence as a popular bar area on a Saturday night. The key isn't that it was an area where a lot of people congregate, but an area where a lot of drunk/under the influence people congregate.

I would understand if Wal-Mart positioned a security guard to deter thefts on a busy day. But I wouldn't expect that security guard to be armed.

Umm, because there are more people in a confined area?

So I guess you ate saying security should only be provided inareas that serve alcohol? Got it! Ban alcohol.

Oh wait....we tried that with less than outstanding results.

You do know we severely restrict the consumption and production of alcohol, including limiting where it can be sold, when it can sold, how old you can be to buy it, when you can use it, etc, right? Not all regulations surrounding it are great (I personally believe we would benefit from a lower drinking age), but certain regulations make sense. Like how people can be held personally liable if they overserve someone.

Regulations are one thing and can be debated. Bans or prohibitions are another. As has been proven many times over, bans don’t work. Evil/crazy will find a way around those as was the case with Prohibition and firearms bans (see discussion/data above regarding effectiveness of gun bans.)

Ans thanks for the condescending “You do know ...” preamble. Did you read what I wrote? See, two can play that worthless game.

I read what you wrote and I felt a condescending post deserved a condescending response.

I’m generally of the same opinion regarding outright bans of large classes of objects/activities, but don’t feel that bans are all inherently bad and worthless.

For example, I’m a big proponent of at a minimum, decriminalizing all drugs because I would rather we focus on dealers and rehabilitating/treating abusers, and I could care less if you want to get high on your own dime. But I do think banning sales of cigarettes or alcohol to minors makes sense for public health reasons. I also think banning the sale of automatic weapons or grenade launchers is reasonable, given the lack of utility they offer, versus the potential damage they could do. Don’t mind banning people from smoking on planes. Or banning people from drinking and driving.

(08-06-2019 06:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 06:43 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 06:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 04:02 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 03:38 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I'm in the same boat. Not sure why Tomball thinks a Wal-Mart on tax free day needs the same type of security presence as a popular bar area on a Saturday night. The key isn't that it was an area where a lot of people congregate, but an area where a lot of drunk/under the influence people congregate.

I would understand if Wal-Mart positioned a security guard to deter thefts on a busy day. But I wouldn't expect that security guard to be armed.

Umm, because there are more people in a confined area?

So I guess you ate saying security should only be provided inareas that serve alcohol? Got it! Ban alcohol.

Oh wait....we tried that with less than outstanding results.

You do know we severely restrict the consumption and production of alcohol, including limiting where it can be sold, when it can sold, how old you can be to buy it, when you can use it, etc, right? Not all regulations surrounding it are great (I personally believe we would benefit from a lower drinking age), but certain regulations make sense. Like how people can be held personally liable if they overserve someone.

Regulations are one thing and can be debated. Bans or prohibitions are another. As has been proven many times over, bans don’t work. Evil/crazy will find a way around those as was the case with Prohibition and firearms bans (see discussion/data above regarding effectiveness of gun bans.)

Ans thanks for the condescending “You do know ...” preamble. Did you read what I wrote? See, two can play that worthless game.

I read what you wrote and I felt a condescending post deserved a condescending response.

I’m generally of the same opinion regarding outright bans of large classes of objects/activities, but don’t feel that bans are all inherently bad and worthless.

For example, I’m a big proponent of at a minimum, decriminalizing all drugs because I would rather we focus on dealers and rehabilitating/treating abusers, and I could care less if you want to get high on your own dime. But I do think banning sales of cigarettes or alcohol to minors makes sense for public health reasons. I also think banning the sale of automatic weapons or grenade launchers is reasonable, given the lack of utility they offer, versus the potential damage they could do. Don’t mind banning people from smoking on planes. Or banning people from drinking and driving.

Yep, those bans on underage drinking and cigarette purchases are real effective. Just proves the point on the limited effectiveness of bans.

(08-06-2019 08:49 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 06:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 06:43 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 06:26 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-06-2019 04:02 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  Umm, because there are more people in a confined area?

So I guess you ate saying security should only be provided inareas that serve alcohol? Got it! Ban alcohol.

Oh wait....we tried that with less than outstanding results.

You do know we severely restrict the consumption and production of alcohol, including limiting where it can be sold, when it can sold, how old you can be to buy it, when you can use it, etc, right? Not all regulations surrounding it are great (I personally believe we would benefit from a lower drinking age), but certain regulations make sense. Like how people can be held personally liable if they overserve someone.

Regulations are one thing and can be debated. Bans or prohibitions are another. As has been proven many times over, bans don’t work. Evil/crazy will find a way around those as was the case with Prohibition and firearms bans (see discussion/data above regarding effectiveness of gun bans.)

Ans thanks for the condescending “You do know ...” preamble. Did you read what I wrote? See, two can play that worthless game.

I read what you wrote and I felt a condescending post deserved a condescending response.

I’m generally of the same opinion regarding outright bans of large classes of objects/activities, but don’t feel that bans are all inherently bad and worthless.

For example, I’m a big proponent of at a minimum, decriminalizing all drugs because I would rather we focus on dealers and rehabilitating/treating abusers, and I could care less if you want to get high on your own dime. But I do think banning sales of cigarettes or alcohol to minors makes sense for public health reasons. I also think banning the sale of automatic weapons or grenade launchers is reasonable, given the lack of utility they offer, versus the potential damage they could do. Don’t mind banning people from smoking on planes. Or banning people from drinking and driving.

Yep, those bans on underage drinking and cigarette purchases are real effective. Just proves the point on the limited effectiveness of bans.

No ban (or law for that matter) will be 100% effective. Does that less than 100% effective rate mean that the effort isn’t worthwhile?

(08-07-2019 06:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  No ban (or law for that matter) will be 100% effective. Does that less than 100% effective rate mean that the effort isn’t worthwhile?

Depends on the margin by which they miss 100%. If it's 90-95% effective, probably worthwhile. If 1-5% effective, probably not.

An "assault weapons ban" cannot possibly reduce gun deaths by even 1%, because the number of gun deaths caused by "assault weapons" is substantially less than 1% of total gun deaths.

Gun registration has little to no potential to reduce gun deaths or mass shootings. Thought experiment, how many of our mass shootings would have been prevented by gun registration? Or background checks?

For that matter, in how many of our mass shootings do you think the shooter would have said, "Hey I want to kill some people, but only if I can use an assault weapon"?

Prediction: If we outlaw "assault weapons" we will still have people being killed by them, because they will be available illegally and crazy people aren't much influenced by the law, and the number killed by other rifles and pistols will go up. In other words, it will work as well as Prohibition.

Quote:Since the early days of his tenure as a Fox prime-time host, Tucker Carlson’s unabashed championing of white grievances earned him the accolades of neo-Nazis, who praised him as a “one man gas chamber” and complimented the way he “lampshad[ed] Jews on national television.” While Carlson claims to have nothing in common with neo-Nazis and white supremacists, he constantly echoes their talking points on his show and was very reluctant to condemn white supremacists following their deadly 2017 demonstration in Charlottesville, VA. In fact, Carlson’s racist roots can be traced back more than a decade.

Here’s a timeline of the public devolution of Tucker Carlson’s thinly veiled racism into full-throated white supremacy (this list will be continually updated):

https://www.mediamatters.org/tucker-carl...y-timeline

The solution is simple: simply put a question to be answered on the background check: "Do you plan to use this gun to kill people"? Anyone who answers yes cannot be sold a gun.

THAT would be a more robust background check.

(08-07-2019 10:06 AM)At Ease Wrote:  

Quote:Since the early days of his tenure as a Fox prime-time host, Tucker Carlson’s unabashed championing of white grievances earned him the accolades of neo-Nazis, who praised him as a “one man gas chamber” and complimented the way he “lampshad[ed] Jews on national television.” While Carlson claims to have nothing in common with neo-Nazis and white supremacists, he constantly echoes their talking points on his show and was very reluctant to condemn white supremacists following their deadly 2017 demonstration in Charlottesville, VA. In fact, Carlson’s racist roots can be traced back more than a decade.

Here’s a timeline of the public devolution of Tucker Carlson’s thinly veiled racism into full-throated white supremacy (this list will be continually updated):

https://www.mediamatters.org/tucker-carl...y-timeline

Media Matters? Sure, he will get a fair trial there.

Leave it to Sir Whack A Mole to use Media Matters as a primary source. I assume that was placed, once again, as a blind link post with zero comment.

I dont know. He is the sole resident of my Ignore list. For that reason.

Really amazing that anyone made it onto my Ignore list; massively surprised it was a Rice guy.

I just added him to my ignore list. He is a True Blue(not a compliment), and as such, I don't need to read his posts to know his position.

I dont mind his (or any else's, for that matter) position.

But the 'gee lets just post a link' isnt worth the time.

(08-07-2019 04:38 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I dont mind his (or any else's, for that matter) position.

But the 'gee lets just post a link' isnt worth the time.

The people who just parrot the left's talking points irritate me. At least Lad and 93 do some independent thinking.

Just tossing a link isnt even parroting.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/4-k...li=BBnbfcL

Better background checks and an assault weapons ban would have prevented this.

(08-08-2019 09:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/4-k...li=BBnbfcL

Better background checks and an assault weapons ban would have prevented this.

OO sees someone speeding on the highway. Thinks "Wow, look at that person speeding, why do we even have speed limits if someone is going to speed!"

OO sees someone ignore a stop sign. Thinks "Wow, look at that person speeding, why do we even have speed limits if someone is going to speed!"

(08-08-2019 12:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-08-2019 09:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/4-k...li=BBnbfcL
Better background checks and an assault weapons ban would have prevented this.

OO sees someone speeding on the highway. Thinks "Wow, look at that person speeding, why do we even have speed limits if someone is going to speed!"
OO sees someone ignore a stop sign. Thinks "Wow, look at that person speeding, why do we even have speed limits if someone is going to speed!"

Bad analogy.

Better analogy. We have law saying that all cars sold on Thursday must be orange. OO wants to buy blue car, and it is Thursday. OO asks, "Why do we have a law requiring that only orange cars can be sold on Thursday when there is no apparent advantage to orange cars?"

You want to impose certain gun controls and your rationale is preventing mass shootings. Which of the proposals that you support would have prevented which mass shootings?

(08-08-2019 12:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(08-08-2019 09:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/4-k...li=BBnbfcL

Better background checks and an assault weapons ban would have prevented this.

OO sees someone speeding on the highway. Thinks "Wow, look at that person speeding, why do we even have speed limits if someone is going to speed!"

OO sees someone ignore a stop sign. Thinks "Wow, look at that person speeding, why do we even have speed limits if someone is going to speed!"

I'll be honest lad... I really have a problem with this position... and it's mirrored lots of places from the left so clearly it resonates with the left... but it is a HUGE red flag for the right... so it's an issue that needs to be worked through if we're ever going to get anywhere.

Similar to what Owl said, but I'll say it differently....

first the analogy. It's more like seeing somebody doing 150mph, which is already illegal.... and something only a few people WOULD do much less COULD do... and saying, let's ban all cars.

Now to the reality

Taking away a Constitutional right is a big deal, even if one thinks that right is 'not important' anymore. It should require some very strong assurances that the price being paid is worth it... and the price being paid is NOT 'you can't have guns anymore'... the price is 'the government can take away your rights'.

I think if there were even reasonable belief that a total ban on guns would meaningfully reduce the number of mass killings in this country, you'd have a lot more support... but there isn't.

A total ban on alcohol produced a bigger problem. A total ban on drugs arguably has as well.

When we talk about 'common sense' restrictions, they're only 'common sense' to people who have the common sense not to kill people with them.

I'd like for someone to take a look at every mass shooter, and apply some of these 'common sense' solutions and see how big a dent it would have made. Every one I've seen shows that they either passed or would pass a background check, OR they already broke the law in having them... Focusing on the gun us silly... the FBI classifies a 'gun' (when talking about restrictions) as the lower... the action... which is why people can buy the action for a legal AR-15, and then put things like a bump stock on it. Barrells are easy to affix to guns, so are grips... and the magazines can be fabricated in almost any garage, or even 3d printed.

so it seems clear that a common sense solution would be better enforcement of existing laws

(08-08-2019 03:37 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  so it seems clear that a common sense solution would be better enforcement of existing laws

+1

(08-08-2019 03:37 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I think if there were even reasonable belief that a total ban on guns would meaningfully reduce the number of mass killings in this country, you'd have a lot more support... but there isn't.

If there were even a reasonable belief that an "assault weapons ban" or gun registration or universal background checks would reduce the number of mass killings or total gun deaths, then there would be a sustainable argument for such steps. Not conclusive, but sustainable. But there just isn't such reasonable belief, based on empirical data. There simply isn't.