+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: AACbbs (/forum-460.html)
+---- Forum: Members (/forum-401.html)
+----- Forum: Rice (/forum-444.html)
+------ Forum: Kent Rowald Memorial Quad (/forum-660.html)
+------ Thread: Mass shootings/gun control (/thread-880198.html)
RE: Mass shootings/gun control - RiceLad15 - 09-05-2019 06:49 AM
(09-04-2019 11:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:(09-04-2019 07:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:(09-04-2019 03:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:(09-04-2019 10:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:(09-04-2019 10:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: Completely disagree that "my side" is unwilling to address whether there are better ways to address gun violence.
So, who on your side has proposed even one way, other than some form of gun regulation, to address the issue? Name one, and give a link.
Thats a specious request. Lol. So specious no one has even attempted to answer. Funny that. I think the silence will be deafening on this one.....
Historical perspective: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/apr/30/summary-manchin-toomey-gun-proposal/
And current (Warren has countless proposals that have nothing to do with brute-force gun control): https://medium.com/@teamwarren/protecting-our-communities-from-gun-violence-a2ebf7abd9be
"brute force gun control" --- now that is the tap dance phrase of the month..... lolz.
Every one of those is 'regulation of guns' (i.e. measures specifically directed at impeding guns from being owned by US citizens). Every. Single. One.
I think it will be fun using your tap dance change of phrase back your way for a while. This could be quite enjoyable.
You didn’t actually read the Warren link. Not only did she specifically talk about increasing funding for research, she mentioned reporting when people make multiple purchases of guns, increasing waiting periods, increasing prosecution of gun traffickers, creating a federal licensing program, increasing the tax on guns, and implementing a monthly cap on purchases.
And the reason I said brute force gun control, is because the primary issue we all have been discussing with regards to addressing gun violence is the problem of banning ownership of specific guns. I don’t see how completely exempting guns from any and all regulation makes any sense, whatsoever, and I figured y’all didn’t actually mean avoiding any regulation that either makes it more difficult to own a gun (e.g. background checks), restricts who can own a gun based on risk factors (e.g. red flag laws), or even just delays the time it takes to own a gun (e.g. waiting periods).
RE: Mass shootings/gun control - Owl 69/70/75 - 09-05-2019 07:26 AM
(09-05-2019 06:49 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: You didn’t actually read the Warren link. Not only did she specifically talk about increasing funding for research, she mentioned reporting when people make multiple purchases of guns, increasing waiting periods, increasing prosecution of gun traffickers, creating a federal licensing program, increasing the tax on guns, and implementing a monthly cap on purchases.
Except for possibly the research (which will probably turn up new ways to restrict guns) every other one of those is a restriction on the 2nd Amendment. And none of them has ever actually worked. Why not do the research on what has worked and what hasn't?
Quote:And the reason I said brute force gun control, is because the primary issue we all have been discussing with regards to addressing gun violence is the problem of banning ownership of specific guns. I don’t see how completely exempting guns from any and all regulation makes any sense, whatsoever, and I figured y’all didn’t actually mean avoiding any regulation that either makes it more difficult to own a gun (e.g. background checks), restricts who can own a gun based on risk factors (e.g. red flag laws), or even just delays the time it takes to own a gun (e.g. waiting periods).
I'm not aware that guns are exempt from "any and all regulation," nor am I aware that anybody has proposed such. I would see any of background checks, red flag laws, or waiting periods as both very unlikely to be effective (name the mass shootings that any of them would have stopped) and very likely to lead to brute force enforcement. I really don't think you understand the problem.
RE: Mass shootings/gun control - RiceLad15 - 09-05-2019 07:52 AM
(09-05-2019 07:26 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:(09-05-2019 06:49 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: You didn’t actually read the Warren link. Not only did she specifically talk about increasing funding for research, she mentioned reporting when people make multiple purchases of guns, increasing waiting periods, increasing prosecution of gun traffickers, creating a federal licensing program, increasing the tax on guns, and implementing a monthly cap on purchases.
Except for possibly the research (which will probably turn up new ways to restrict guns) every other one of those is a restriction on the 2nd Amendment. And none of them has ever actually worked. Why not do the research on what has worked and what hasn't?
Quote:And the reason I said brute force gun control, is because the primary issue we all have been discussing with regards to addressing gun violence is the problem of banning ownership of specific guns. I don’t see how completely exempting guns from any and all regulation makes any sense, whatsoever, and I figured y’all didn’t actually mean avoiding any regulation that either makes it more difficult to own a gun (e.g. background checks), restricts who can own a gun based on risk factors (e.g. red flag laws), or even just delays the time it takes to own a gun (e.g. waiting periods).
I'm not aware that guns are exempt from "any and all regulation," nor am I aware that anybody has proposed such. I would see any of background checks, red flag laws, or waiting periods as both very unlikely to be effective (name the mass shootings that any of them would have stopped) and very likely to lead to brute force enforcement. I really don't think you understand the problem.
Your personal belief on whether or not a proposal would be effective isn’t germane to the statement that no one from the left is proposing anything that wouldn’t restrict the 2nd Amendment. You seemingly left off the proposals that clearly don’t do that, like increasing prosecution of gun traffickers. Plus, news has come out that the Midland shooter failed a background check when he tried to purchase a gun a few years ago, and got around that by purchasing his gun in a private sale. So there is data point one about how background checks can keep legally purchased guns out of the hands of mentally unstable individuals.
I do understand the problem, I just recognize that you’ve created an impossible situation to address when you’re arguing that there shall be no restriction on gun ownership, even though we already have legal methods to restrict gun ownership. The issue at hand is where exactly is the line that can’t be crossed, as we have already established that we legally can restrict gun ownership.
RE: Mass shootings/gun control - tanqtonic - 09-05-2019 08:12 AM
(09-05-2019 06:49 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:(09-04-2019 11:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:(09-04-2019 07:42 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:(09-04-2019 03:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:(09-04-2019 10:59 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: So, who on your side has proposed even one way, other than some form of gun regulation, to address the issue? Name one, and give a link.
Thats a specious request. Lol. So specious no one has even attempted to answer. Funny that. I think the silence will be deafening on this one.....
Historical perspective: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/apr/30/summary-manchin-toomey-gun-proposal/
And current (Warren has countless proposals that have nothing to do with brute-force gun control): https://medium.com/@teamwarren/protecting-our-communities-from-gun-violence-a2ebf7abd9be
"brute force gun control" --- now that is the tap dance phrase of the month..... lolz.
Every one of those is 'regulation of guns' (i.e. measures specifically directed at impeding guns from being owned by US citizens). Every. Single. One.
I think it will be fun using your tap dance change of phrase back your way for a while. This could be quite enjoyable.
You didn’t actually read the Warren link. Not only did she specifically talk about increasing funding for research, she mentioned reporting when people make multiple purchases of guns, increasing waiting periods, increasing prosecution of gun traffickers, creating a federal licensing program, increasing the tax on guns, and implementing a monthly cap on purchases.
I will absolutely concede the research isnt designed to impede the ability of a consumer to obtain a firearm. And spot you the prosecution of gun traffickers.
Practically every other proposal is designed to impede an ability to own firearms, either on the demand side or the supply side.
Quote:And the reason I said brute force gun control, is because the primary issue we all have been discussing with regards to addressing gun violence is the problem of banning ownership of specific guns.
So a proposal to ban bullets, or ban the sale of any firearm, or restrict the operation of gunshops be zoning that is designed to eliminate them would also not be, by your own definition, 'brute force gun control'.
Practically every policy in there has the goal in mind of restricting the end ownership of firearms. It actually serves as a perfect example of what your side denotes as 'NRA paranoia' over single actions -- and Warren has done us the service of actually serving the full meal instead of the age old methodology of the left of serving the full fare in an ala carte fashion.
Quote:I don’t see how completely exempting guns from any and all regulation makes any sense,
I dont think I have ever noted that "exempting guns from any and all regulation". Please do note where I (or anyone on this board) support that.
Quote:whatsoever, and I figured y’all didn’t actually mean avoiding any regulation that either makes it more difficult to own a gun (e.g. background checks), restricts who can own a gun based on risk factors (e.g. red flag laws), or even just delays the time it takes to own a gun (e.g. waiting periods).
Perhaps you should take Warren's 'to do list' and put it all together as a unitary body.
The ultimate goal of this is to drive the sales (and thus ownership) of firearms to zero. You are so obsessed about the singular trees, you really dont seem to notice the forest for what it is.
Lets face it, even her individual proposal of removing the lawsuit restrictions against the manufacturers is simply designed to have them driven out of business from the anti-gun lobby courtroom version of the favorite leftist sport of doxxing.
Hate to tell you, but even under the current lawsuit restrictions, gun manufacturers are liable for their own negligence in manufacturing and design. But the left (from the 1960's onward) has made a blood sport of saying 'gun manufacturers should be liable for Sandy Hook', for god who the fk knows what reason. Warren's policies simply are a rallying cry for plaintiff's attorneys to do what the Federal government cannot do -- and when you look at what that policy is actually making the call for should make you feel utterly sick.
Think of this -- how about we enact legislation that makes abortion providers civilly liable for every abortion? It doesnt matter if the suits are successfully ended or not, you know damn well some groups would take that opportunity to sue the abortion industry off the face of the nation. The defense costs alone would see to that. Are you copacetic with that as a fundamental policy measure?
By your measure that would not be 'brute force abortion restriction', but hopefully that example lets you see that that characterization is not entirely truthful. The anti-abortionists could claim with a straight face that this isnt government action, and not an abortion restriction, much as you try to claim that Warren's laundry list (as a whole excepting perhaps two or three proposals) isnt 'gun restriction'.
But the left goes ape **** over the using the end run method as a matter of policy implementation for *their* position. For guns, you all are all for that ****. Funnily, when it comes to abortions, you are aghast at that end run policy, and are equally as ape **** in your absolute disdain for such end runs like the Texas admitting privileges policy. I mean, you all are 'death by a thousand cuts is copacetic' when it is a right or a law you are in opposition to, but religiously shocked and aghast when a 'frittering' occurs with a right or law you support. And, that is, once again, why I find the progressive theology fundamentally dishonest.
But the claim that the lawsuits against abortion providers arent 'restrictions' would be in reality an absolute farce. Wash, rinse, and repeat for most everything on Warren's to-do list.
RE: Mass shootings/gun control - Tomball Owl - 09-05-2019 08:13 AM
(09-05-2019 06:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:(09-04-2019 10:26 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:(09-03-2019 07:30 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: So as I mentioned a few posts back, the shooter over the weekend apparently bought his AR 15 in a private sale - likely because he knew he would fail a background check (my speculation on the latter but Governor Abbott did say he failed a background check).
Would any of you be in favor of banning private sales of AR 15 rifles? If one has an AR-15 they want to sell, they'd have to sell it to a gun vendor who could only re-sell it when the buyer would have to pass a background check?
https://www.cbs7.com/content/news/FBI-served-search-warrant-at-home-in-Lubbock-apparently-in-connection-with-Saturdays-multiple-shootings-559419811.html
I’m sure these two would have followed your proposed private sale background check.
So because people may break a new law, it shouldn’t be implemented?
That’s the logic you’re putting out there.
No. I’m saying your proposed new law, just for the sake of doing something, very likely would not have made a difference in the Odessa incident.
“The Wall Street Journal reports that law enforcement is investigating a person of interest in Lubbock, suspected of illegally manufacturing and selling the rifle used in Saturday’s mass shooting in Midland/Odessa.”
He is suspected of “illegally manufacturing and selling the rifle”. Laws we have, people willing to follow them and better/stricter enforcement we need.
Like others have said here, focus on actions that will actually make a difference and work the real problem.
RE: Mass shootings/gun control - tanqtonic - 09-05-2019 08:23 AM
(09-05-2019 07:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: I just recognize that you’ve created an impossible situation to address when you’re arguing that there shall be no restriction on gun ownership, even though we already have legal methods to restrict gun ownership. The issue at hand is where exactly is the line that can’t be crossed, as we have already established that we legally can restrict gun ownership.
One can substitute the term 'a right to an abortion' for the term 'gun ownership' in the above statement and watch the progressives melt down over that. Funny that change in attitude.
RE: Mass shootings/gun control - RiceLad15 - 09-05-2019 08:26 AM
(09-05-2019 08:23 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:(09-05-2019 07:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: I just recognize that you’ve created an impossible situation to address when you’re arguing that there shall be no restriction on gun ownership, even though we already have legal methods to restrict gun ownership. The issue at hand is where exactly is the line that can’t be crossed, as we have already established that we legally can restrict gun ownership.
One can substitute the term 'a right to an abortion' for the term 'gun ownership' in the above statement and watch the progressives melt down over that. Funny that change in attitude.
Point being?
RE: Mass shootings/gun control - RiceLad15 - 09-05-2019 08:27 AM
(09-05-2019 08:13 AM)Tomball Owl Wrote:(09-05-2019 06:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:(09-04-2019 10:26 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:(09-03-2019 07:30 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: So as I mentioned a few posts back, the shooter over the weekend apparently bought his AR 15 in a private sale - likely because he knew he would fail a background check (my speculation on the latter but Governor Abbott did say he failed a background check).
Would any of you be in favor of banning private sales of AR 15 rifles? If one has an AR-15 they want to sell, they'd have to sell it to a gun vendor who could only re-sell it when the buyer would have to pass a background check?
https://www.cbs7.com/content/news/FBI-served-search-warrant-at-home-in-Lubbock-apparently-in-connection-with-Saturdays-multiple-shootings-559419811.html
I’m sure these two would have followed your proposed private sale background check.
So because people may break a new law, it shouldn’t be implemented?
That’s the logic you’re putting out there.
No. I’m saying your proposed new law, just for the sake of doing something, very likely would not have made a difference in the Odessa incident.
“The Wall Street Journal reports that law enforcement is investigating a person of interest in Lubbock, suspected of illegally manufacturing and selling the rifle used in Saturday’s mass shooting in Midland/Odessa.”
He is suspected of “illegally manufacturing and selling the rifle”. Laws we have, people willing to follow them and better/stricter enforcement we need.
Like others have said here, focus on actions that will actually make a difference and work the real problem.
Arguing that a law won’t be effective is very different than just pointing out that people will attempt to break a law, which is what you did.
RE: Mass shootings/gun control - westsidewolf1989 - 09-05-2019 09:52 AM
(09-05-2019 08:13 AM)Tomball Owl Wrote:(09-05-2019 06:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:(09-04-2019 10:26 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:(09-03-2019 07:30 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: So as I mentioned a few posts back, the shooter over the weekend apparently bought his AR 15 in a private sale - likely because he knew he would fail a background check (my speculation on the latter but Governor Abbott did say he failed a background check).
Would any of you be in favor of banning private sales of AR 15 rifles? If one has an AR-15 they want to sell, they'd have to sell it to a gun vendor who could only re-sell it when the buyer would have to pass a background check?
https://www.cbs7.com/content/news/FBI-served-search-warrant-at-home-in-Lubbock-apparently-in-connection-with-Saturdays-multiple-shootings-559419811.html
I’m sure these two would have followed your proposed private sale background check.
So because people may break a new law, it shouldn’t be implemented?
That’s the logic you’re putting out there.
No. I’m saying your proposed new law, just for the sake of doing something, very likely would not have made a difference in the Odessa incident.
“The Wall Street Journal reports that law enforcement is investigating a person of interest in Lubbock, suspected of illegally manufacturing and selling the rifle used in Saturday’s mass shooting in Midland/Odessa.”
He is suspected of “illegally manufacturing and selling the rifle”. Laws we have, people willing to follow them and better/stricter enforcement we need.
Like others have said here, focus on actions that will actually make a difference and work the real problem.
Ah, but could it not make a difference in preventing a future incident(s)?
RE: Mass shootings/gun control - OptimisticOwl - 09-05-2019 10:16 AM
(09-05-2019 06:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: ... ways the left has either historically, or currently, wanted to try and combat gun violence that don’t directly involve the restriction of gun ownership.
Directly? DIRECTLY?
I think we have a confession.
RE: Mass shootings/gun control - OptimisticOwl - 09-05-2019 10:18 AM
(09-05-2019 08:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:(09-05-2019 08:23 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:(09-05-2019 07:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: I just recognize that you’ve created an impossible situation to address when you’re arguing that there shall be no restriction on gun ownership, even though we already have legal methods to restrict gun ownership. The issue at hand is where exactly is the line that can’t be crossed, as we have already established that we legally can restrict gun ownership.
One can substitute the term 'a right to an abortion' for the term 'gun ownership' in the above statement and watch the progressives melt down over that. Funny that change in attitude.
Point being?
Point being the left is not concerned with saving lives. Just winning elections.
RE: Mass shootings/gun control - RiceLad15 - 09-05-2019 10:42 AM
(09-05-2019 10:16 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:(09-05-2019 06:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: ... ways the left has either historically, or currently, wanted to try and combat gun violence that don’t directly involve the restriction of gun ownership.
Directly? DIRECTLY?
I think we have a confession.
I've got no idea what your point is, or what I am confessing to.
RE: Mass shootings/gun control - RiceLad15 - 09-05-2019 10:42 AM
(09-05-2019 10:18 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:(09-05-2019 08:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:(09-05-2019 08:23 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:(09-05-2019 07:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: I just recognize that you’ve created an impossible situation to address when you’re arguing that there shall be no restriction on gun ownership, even though we already have legal methods to restrict gun ownership. The issue at hand is where exactly is the line that can’t be crossed, as we have already established that we legally can restrict gun ownership.
One can substitute the term 'a right to an abortion' for the term 'gun ownership' in the above statement and watch the progressives melt down over that. Funny that change in attitude.
Point being?
Point being the left is not concerned with saving lives. Just winning elections.
Don't see the logic there, at all.
I think Tanq's point was to try and point out potential hypocrisy.
RE: Mass shootings/gun control - OptimisticOwl - 09-05-2019 10:43 AM
(09-05-2019 10:42 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:(09-05-2019 10:16 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:(09-05-2019 06:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: ... ways the left has either historically, or currently, wanted to try and combat gun violence that don’t directly involve the restriction of gun ownership.
Directly? DIRECTLY?
I think we have a confession.
I've got no idea what your point is, or what I am confessing to.
You have made a tacit admission that many of the things the left want would INdirecltly involve the restriction of gun ownership.
RE: Mass shootings/gun control - tanqtonic - 09-05-2019 11:12 AM
(09-05-2019 09:52 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:(09-05-2019 08:13 AM)Tomball Owl Wrote:(09-05-2019 06:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:(09-04-2019 10:26 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:(09-03-2019 07:30 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: So as I mentioned a few posts back, the shooter over the weekend apparently bought his AR 15 in a private sale - likely because he knew he would fail a background check (my speculation on the latter but Governor Abbott did say he failed a background check).
Would any of you be in favor of banning private sales of AR 15 rifles? If one has an AR-15 they want to sell, they'd have to sell it to a gun vendor who could only re-sell it when the buyer would have to pass a background check?
https://www.cbs7.com/content/news/FBI-served-search-warrant-at-home-in-Lubbock-apparently-in-connection-with-Saturdays-multiple-shootings-559419811.html
I’m sure these two would have followed your proposed private sale background check.
So because people may break a new law, it shouldn’t be implemented?
That’s the logic you’re putting out there.
No. I’m saying your proposed new law, just for the sake of doing something, very likely would not have made a difference in the Odessa incident.
“The Wall Street Journal reports that law enforcement is investigating a person of interest in Lubbock, suspected of illegally manufacturing and selling the rifle used in Saturday’s mass shooting in Midland/Odessa.”
He is suspected of “illegally manufacturing and selling the rifle”. Laws we have, people willing to follow them and better/stricter enforcement we need.
Like others have said here, focus on actions that will actually make a difference and work the real problem.
Ah, but could it not make a difference in preventing a future incident(s)?
Given the track record of *one* incident, is that response really proportionate?
If the rationale is the gold standard of preventing *every* instance, then we definitely need to ban cars because of that level of concern. Not to mention the added 'unknown danger' of CO2.
RE: Mass shootings/gun control - tanqtonic - 09-05-2019 11:22 AM
(09-05-2019 10:16 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:(09-05-2019 06:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: ... ways the left has either historically, or currently, wanted to try and combat gun violence that don’t directly involve the restriction of gun ownership.
Directly? DIRECTLY?
I think we have a confession.
Combined with the already present deflection of 'brute force gun control', lad seems to be very hard pressed to even acknowledge the depth and breadth of the indirect and ancillary restrictions that add up.
The great thing about the Warren list is that that list being all in one place and each and every one of them having the full backing of a presidential candidate gave absolute concrete credence to the supposed paranoid NRA claims regarding being 'end runned' and 'raindropped' to death.
When you stack them all together that is a fundamental direct assault on the individual right.
Yet some want to tap dance around the difference between a 'brute force' or 'direct' gun control and that of the overall effect of any one of the issues, let alone them all together.
And *that* is the progressive playbook in all its glory.
lad has zero issue about the individual effect of any of them, let alone to the combination. But it allows him the dishonesty of stating that in no way shape or form are they 'direct' infringements. Again, progressivism 101 at its finest.
RE: Mass shootings/gun control - tanqtonic - 09-05-2019 11:24 AM
(09-05-2019 10:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:(09-05-2019 10:42 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:(09-05-2019 10:16 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:(09-05-2019 06:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: ... ways the left has either historically, or currently, wanted to try and combat gun violence that don’t directly involve the restriction of gun ownership.
Directly? DIRECTLY?
I think we have a confession.
I've got no idea what your point is, or what I am confessing to.
You have made a tacit admission that many of the things the left want would INdirecltly involve the restriction of gun ownership.
Thats a specious claim OO. Anything less than a full ban is apparently a specious description of infringement. That is, everything except, say, abortion.
RE: Mass shootings/gun control - RiceLad15 - 09-05-2019 11:29 AM
(09-05-2019 10:43 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:(09-05-2019 10:42 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:(09-05-2019 10:16 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:(09-05-2019 06:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: ... ways the left has either historically, or currently, wanted to try and combat gun violence that don’t directly involve the restriction of gun ownership.
Directly? DIRECTLY?
I think we have a confession.
I've got no idea what your point is, or what I am confessing to.
You have made a tacit admission that many of the things the left want would INdirecltly involve the restriction of gun ownership.
I mean, no ****. These are called gun control proposals for a reason.
There is a difference between saying everyone can’t own an AR-15 (direct) and saying you must pass a background check to own an AR-15 (indirect) or you must pass a licensing exam to own an AR-15 (indirect). And that doesn’t touch on things like focusing more resources on gun smuggling, which also indirectly reduces gun ownership.
RE: Mass shootings/gun control - RiceLad15 - 09-05-2019 11:32 AM
(09-05-2019 11:12 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:(09-05-2019 09:52 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:(09-05-2019 08:13 AM)Tomball Owl Wrote:(09-05-2019 06:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:(09-04-2019 10:26 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote: https://www.cbs7.com/content/news/FBI-served-search-warrant-at-home-in-Lubbock-apparently-in-connection-with-Saturdays-multiple-shootings-559419811.html
I’m sure these two would have followed your proposed private sale background check.
So because people may break a new law, it shouldn’t be implemented?
That’s the logic you’re putting out there.
No. I’m saying your proposed new law, just for the sake of doing something, very likely would not have made a difference in the Odessa incident.
“The Wall Street Journal reports that law enforcement is investigating a person of interest in Lubbock, suspected of illegally manufacturing and selling the rifle used in Saturday’s mass shooting in Midland/Odessa.”
He is suspected of “illegally manufacturing and selling the rifle”. Laws we have, people willing to follow them and better/stricter enforcement we need.
Like others have said here, focus on actions that will actually make a difference and work the real problem.
Ah, but could it not make a difference in preventing a future incident(s)?
Given the track record of *one* incident, is that response really proportionate?
If the rationale is the gold standard of preventing *every* instance, then we definitely need to ban cars because of that level of concern. Not to mention the added 'unknown danger' of CO2.
That’s a good argument for why we shouldn’t let the failure of a law in a single instance keep us from passing laws. No will be 100% effective, therefore, we shouldn’t let perfect get in the way of a productive measure.
I don’t think you meant for your comment to be interpreted that way, though.
RE: Mass shootings/gun control - RiceLad15 - 09-05-2019 11:35 AM
(09-05-2019 11:22 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:(09-05-2019 10:16 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:(09-05-2019 06:41 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: ... ways the left has either historically, or currently, wanted to try and combat gun violence that don’t directly involve the restriction of gun ownership.
Directly? DIRECTLY?
I think we have a confession.
Combined with the already present deflection of 'brute force gun control', lad seems to be very hard pressed to even acknowledge the depth and breadth of the indirect and ancillary restrictions that add up.
The great thing about the Warren list is that that list being all in one place and each and every one of them having the full backing of a presidential candidate gave absolute concrete credence to the supposed paranoid NRA claims regarding being 'end runned' and 'raindropped' to death.
When you stack them all together that is a fundamental direct assault on the individual right.
Yet some want to tap dance around the difference between a 'brute force' or 'direct' gun control and that of the overall effect of any one of the issues, let alone them all together.
And *that* is the progressive playbook in all its glory.
lad has zero issue about the individual effect of any of them, let alone to the combination. But it allows him the dishonesty of stating that in no way shape or form are they 'direct' infringements. Again, progressivism 101 at its finest.
Man, you really did a number twisting my words to come to your final conclusion.
I never said that the individual effects of any of her proposals would directly restrict gun ownership - I actually read her webpage and it was clear that a number of her proposals do. But this goes back to my original point of the willingness of Dems to compromise because their proposals to tackle gun violence run a wide gamut, allowing them much more flexibility than Reps.