+- 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 - Owl 69/70/75 - 08-11-2019 07:38 AM
(08-11-2019 02:08 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: I'm not so sure about Harris. She stumbled badly at the 2nd debate and was down to just 1 percent support of black Democratic voters in the latest Quinnipiac poll. No way will she win the nomination if she can't do better among black voters. Biden, Warren or a surprise male candidate surging at the last moment (Mayor Pete or even Yang) is my new prediction.
Harris is even less appealing to me than Bernie or Warren. Yang would probably be my least distasteful democrat presidential candidate. At least he has said some things with which I agree.
RE: Mass shootings/gun control - Fort Bend Owl - 08-11-2019 07:54 AM
Yang is gaining momentum. I thought he handled this Town Hall question yesterday in Iowa very humanly and truthfully. The question came from a mom whose 4 year old twins were both killed unintentionally by a family gun they were playing with. The video (at the bottom of the story) is moving, but he also answers the question eventually in a smart manner that should be something most people agree with (his solution is personalizing guns so that non-owners can't use them if they get to them somehow).
https://www.businessinsider.com/andrew-yang-moved-to-tears-gun-safety-iowa-town-hall-2019-8
RE: Mass shootings/gun control - Tomball Owl - 08-11-2019 09:05 AM
(08-10-2019 03:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: #3: Dylan Roof and the New Braunfels shooting were failures of the *current* standard; a proper 'check system' should have not allowed them to purchase the guns used.
What “New Braunfels shooting”?
Are you referring to the incident in Sutherland Springs, the perpetrator of which was living in New Braunfels?
RE: Mass shootings/gun control - OptimisticOwl - 08-11-2019 09:09 AM
(08-11-2019 07:54 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: Yang is gaining momentum. I thought he handled this Town Hall question yesterday in Iowa very humanly and truthfully. The question came from a mom whose 4 year old twins were both killed unintentionally by a family gun they were playing with. The video (at the bottom of the story) is moving, but he also answers the question eventually in a smart manner that should be something most people agree with (his solution is personalizing guns so that non-owners can't use them if they get to them somehow).
https://www.businessinsider.com/andrew-yang-moved-to-tears-gun-safety-iowa-town-hall-2019-8
Yang is honest and sincere, rare qualities in the field.
RE: Mass shootings/gun control - OptimisticOwl - 08-11-2019 09:34 AM
Yesterday, I was in traffic behind a high powered sports car. I got to thinking, if that guy were to drive it through an open air market, he could kill a lot of innocent people. And nobody, and I mean nobody, needs a car like that. It has only one purpose, to go fast, and we all know speed kills. So I think we need common sense car ownership laws, to save lives.
Everybody knows what common sense means, so no need to give any details.
RE: Mass shootings/gun control - OptimisticOwl - 08-11-2019 09:57 AM
Harris
“...numerous Iowa voters said they were drawn to Ms. Harris’s potential history-making candidacy as a black woman...”
The Identity Party at work.
RE: Mass shootings/gun control - Fort Bend Owl - 08-11-2019 10:00 AM
(08-11-2019 09:34 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: Yesterday, I was in traffic behind a high powered sports car. I got to thinking, if that guy were to drive it through an open air market, he could kill a lot of innocent people. And nobody, and I mean nobody, needs a car like that. It has only one purpose, to go fast, and we all know speed kills. So I think we need common sense car ownership laws, to save lives.
Everybody knows what common sense means, so no need to give any details.
That's why we have speed zones. Government limiting us on what we can and cannot do with our personal possessions. Works for me.
RE: Mass shootings/gun control - OptimisticOwl - 08-11-2019 10:06 AM
(08-11-2019 10:00 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:(08-11-2019 09:34 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: Yesterday, I was in traffic behind a high powered sports car. I got to thinking, if that guy were to drive it through an open air market, he could kill a lot of innocent people. And nobody, and I mean nobody, needs a car like that. It has only one purpose, to go fast, and we all know speed kills. So I think we need common sense car ownership laws, to save lives.
Everybody knows what common sense means, so no need to give any details.
That's why we have speed zones. Government limiting us on what we can and cannot do with our personal possessions. Works for me.
But...but...but what if the driver decides to ignore the laws?
You know, like every single shooter has done?
Then we would have an uproar demanding stricter buyer checks and restricted ownership of cars with more than 120 hp and refillable tanks. Nobody needs a car that can be misused.
Luckily, the world is ending in 2030, as the climate in Greenland continues to revert to what it used to be 1000 years ago. Won’t have to worry much longer. Maybe the Green Leap Forward will save us.
RE: Mass shootings/gun control - tanqtonic - 08-11-2019 10:32 AM
(08-11-2019 09:05 AM)Tomball Owl Wrote:(08-10-2019 03:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: #3: Dylan Roof and the New Braunfels shooting were failures of the *current* standard; a proper 'check system' should have not allowed them to purchase the guns used.
What “New Braunfels shooting”?
Are you referring to the incident in Sutherland Springs, the perpetrator of which was living in New Braunfels?
Yep, my bad. Somehow I always seem to associate the incident with NB --- now I know why.
RE: Mass shootings/gun control - tanqtonic - 08-11-2019 10:39 AM
(08-11-2019 10:00 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:(08-11-2019 09:34 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: Yesterday, I was in traffic behind a high powered sports car. I got to thinking, if that guy were to drive it through an open air market, he could kill a lot of innocent people. And nobody, and I mean nobody, needs a car like that. It has only one purpose, to go fast, and we all know speed kills. So I think we need common sense car ownership laws, to save lives.
Everybody knows what common sense means, so no need to give any details.
That's why we have speed zones. Government limiting us on what we can and cannot do with our personal possessions. Works for me.
Just like we have government limits already on the use of gun personal possessions. Murder, mayhem, armed robbery, etc.
I guess you forgot about those.
I think for cars we need to do the following:
instituting background checks for car purchases, including online and at car shows;
creating a federal licensing system;
raising the minimum purchasing age to 21;
prosecuting traffickers (haha car traffic traffickers) who move cars across state and international lines; and
banning 'sports cars' and high-capacity gas tanks.
Also cap car purchases to one per month;
close the “boyfriend loophole” to protect survivors of domestic abuse; and
raise taxes on car manufacturers to 30% on cars and 50% on gas. (Oh, wait, we already have that gas tax).
By the way FBO, you do know that your pre-regurgitated response includes the need to crack down on '40,000 gun deaths a year'. Have you even fing bothered to check what number of those are suicide, or do you simply repeat every canned talking point like a good little myna bird?
RE: Mass shootings/gun control - Fort Bend Owl - 08-11-2019 10:54 AM
Bad arguments guys on comparing gun purchases to driving. It's a helluva lot easier for someone to buy a gun than to get a license to drive. And you know that. Or you should. BTW the gas tax nationally is about 50 cents a gallon, counting federal and state taxes. Or about 20 percent for an average rate of $2.50 a gallon. That's another argument that suggests to me that the tax rate on guns is way too low.
In fact, a federal excise tax of 10–11 percent on the import and production of firearms and ammunition has been in place since 1919, but the rate has not been changed since it was first instituted 100 years ago. It's time to change that.
60 percent of gun deaths are suicide. I know that. What I don't know is what people are trying to prove when they keep bringing up gun suicides or mass murder death numbers. Any death via gun - whether suicide, one-on-one killing, or a nutjob killing innocents - is unfortunate and costs our society unnecessary grief and money.
RE: Mass shootings/gun control - tanqtonic - 08-11-2019 11:30 AM
(08-11-2019 10:54 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: Bad arguments guys on comparing gun purchases to driving.
Not arguments at all FBO. Just shrill empty stupid statements in response to the incoming shrill empty stupid statements. To directly relate the former and the latter as the same.
Quote:It's a helluva lot easier for someone to buy a gun than to get a license to drive. And you know that.
Really? Considering you need a fing driver's license in *order* to buy a gun I find that really fing stupid, at the outset. Or did you not know that?
I suggest you go to a fing gun show and *try* to buy a gun without that check. I double dog dare you. That is, opposed to you blindly saying stuff that: a) is divorced from reality; and b) something in the real world you ostensibly dont have fing clue about.
Tack on the additional background check requirements and it is much harder to do so. You can still get a license if you beat the crap out of a spousal partner, or are under an injunction because of a divorce, or have a felony conviction, or actually do drugs. Funny, each of those says you cannot get a gun.
Or do you mean 'it is easier to buy a gun illegally'? Maybe, but it is easier to drive on the streets in a car without a license as well. Funny, you forgot that....
Maybe *you* "know that. Or you should."
Quote:BTW the gas tax nationally is about 50 cents a gallon, counting federal and state taxes. Or about 20 percent for an average rate of $2.50 a gallon. That's another argument that suggests to me that the tax rate on guns is way too low.
Only in a progressive's mind will they do a comparative analysis of a tax rate to determine which one is more 'equitable'. Good fing god.
Quote:In fact, a federal excise tax of 10–11 percent on the import and production of firearms and ammunition has been in place since 1919, but the rate has not been changed since it was first instituted 100 years ago. It's time to change that.
So you think that taxes as a percentage should go up with time. Interesting theory. Last I noted that was why percentages are used as taxes instead of flat nominal taxes. Again, the progressive mind at work here....
Quote:60 percent of gun deaths are suicide. I know that. What I don't know is what people are trying to prove when they keep bringing up gun suicides or mass murder death numbers. Any death via gun - whether suicide, one-on-one killing, or a nutjob killing innocents - is unfortunate and costs our society unnecessary grief and money.
So in your mind we should squash all firearm deaths to zero, only to have 3/4 of them (that is the correct rate, FBO) simply off themselves some other way. Sounds like a smashing idea there FBO. Real fing effective.
Reminds me of the dumb*** at one company I worked at whose work goal was to reduce expenditures in a certain inventory by 15%. So the dumb*** cuts production by 15%. Kind of the 'number blind' game you play with the suicide number as opposed to the bigger picture.
And it lets you use the larger 40,000 number that is parroted like a myna bird. A veritable two-fer there, FBO.
The problem with the *real* numbers is that they diverge by a huge amount from the number that you seemingly like to use as a rapier. It doesnt matter that a massive portion of that number you parrot has zero impact on the subject of the hue and cry; which, in my view, is pretty fing dishonest. But when confronted on it, you dont acknowledge the fact that that number is used in a patently dishonest manner, you double down on it with a view that is grossly ineffectual and grossly out of touch. Again, good for you FBO.
I guess anything is proper as long as it keeps those talking points viable......
RE: Mass shootings/gun control - tanqtonic - 08-11-2019 12:46 PM
FBO, here is a much, much easier way to say what you say:
Just say "I (FBO) am for any measure that makes it harder, if not impossible, to buy, own, or operate a firearm".
I really think you just need to be honest with yourself, and with everyone else for that matter.
RE: Mass shootings/gun control - Fort Bend Owl - 08-11-2019 12:54 PM
I am for any measure that makes it harder, if not impossible, to buy, own, or operate a firearm.
You happy now?
Last I checked, that's not illegal for me to say that.
BTW you're wrong on suicides, but that's not surprising since you're wrong on most things. It's 60 percent as I said, according to most recent stats released (2017 deaths). 23,854 suicides out of 39,773 deaths. But again whether it's 0, 60 or 99, it's too many.
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/12/13/health/gun-deaths-highest-40-years-cdc/index.html
RE: Mass shootings/gun control - Tomball Owl - 08-11-2019 01:03 PM
(08-11-2019 10:32 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:(08-11-2019 09:05 AM)Tomball Owl Wrote:(08-10-2019 03:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: #3: Dylan Roof and the New Braunfels shooting were failures of the *current* standard; a proper 'check system' should have not allowed them to purchase the guns used.
What “New Braunfels shooting”?
Are you referring to the incident in Sutherland Springs, the perpetrator of which was living in New Braunfels?
Yep, my bad. Somehow I always seem to associate the incident with NB --- now I know why.
Having moved to Comal County last fall, I just wanted to make sure.
RE: Mass shootings/gun control - tanqtonic - 08-11-2019 01:08 PM
(08-11-2019 12:54 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: I am for any measure that makes it harder, if not impossible, to buy, own, or operate a firearm.
You happy now?
Last I checked, that's not illegal for me to say that.
BTW you're wrong on suicides, but that's not surprising since you're wrong on most things. It's 60 percent as I said, according to most recent stats released (2017 deaths). 23,854 suicides out of 39,773 deaths. But again whether it's 0, 60 or 99, it's too many.
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/12/13/health/gun-deaths-highest-40-years-cdc/index.html
I am happy. I dont have to listen to the half-assed arm flapping anymore about trying to play hide the fing salami with crap assed fairy tale level terms like 'assault rifle' or the equally as fing vacuous 'military-style firearm' crap that usually emanates from the entire left as a whole on this issue.
Or the inclusion of every fing suicide as a 'gun death that needs to combated' via licensing and registration. You know, the typical artifice and misleading mannerisms inherent in the progressive's normal stated viewpoint.
In fact, I actually respect you quite a bit for being able to say that, and saying it. I wish more on your side actually had the fing spine to do that, to be honest.
I would say actually grow some more fing spine and actually do the 'real legal' way and advocate for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment. And then go hit the statehouses to get those changes. I would have even more of an extraordinary tremendous amount of respect for you. But that is the reason why I probably have less than zero respect for the progressive MO overall.
Or keep doing the spineless progressive **** of trying to ignore that piece of the law and the 'let's just do as many end runs around it as we can' that progressives seem all excited (and very adept) about (i.e. the 'lets just ignore the words' thingy that you do so smashingly well at...)
But being the spineless progressive cause that it is, and the spineless progressives that most progressives are, I will expect the adherents to keep to the 'cut it a million times and bleed it to death' style and the 'lets use fairy tale words to mask everything we want *everyone* else to adhere to' style of rule of law that progressive side seemingly has wet dreams about. Sound about right?
And yes, tossing in suicide gun deaths is a pretty fing stupid move; and an absolutely and fundamentally intellectually dishonest tactic. Thank you for clearing that up once again for us.
Quote:But again whether it's 0, 60 or 99, it's too many.
And funny you dont preach all to fing high heaven about the number of auto deaths with that fing hosanna.
I mean you are absolutely riled about 'even one death' by gun (even if intentionally self-inflicted), but refuse to even consider getting joshed up and ornery about the 30 - 40 thousand auto deaths (most of which arent intentionally self-inflicted). I would hazard your religious commitment to your politics cant let you do *that*, so you dont. Is that right?
Or is it that you are so hateful of any or all firearms that that 'one death' makes you stand so firmly on that soapbox while utterly fing ignoring car deaths in the same number? I mean if you were rational in the the even slightest sense you would be as morally outraged at autos as you are at firearms.
Honest answers if you could: a) why is it so hard for progressives to simply state what you just did? b) Why is it so hard for progressives to simply state 'the time has passed for the 2nd Amendment, we need to rework it to a more reasonable issue'?
c) If the answer to b) is 'it is politically impossible to do so', then what does that tell you about that position relative to the country as a whole?
d) What does the *fact* that you require artifice and indirection to make your position the position of society tell you about *your* position (i.e. the progressive position) on the issue? What does that artifice and indirection that is so liberally (haha) applied tell you about the progressive viewpoint on making sure the *rest* of the country adheres to that stance?
Honestly, if you dont want guns in your household, that is your choice. If you dont want them anywhere, anytime, the fact that your position has to employ artifice and misdirection to get to that endpoint doesnt reflect well on the underlying motives of the progressive movement in the slightest.
--------------------------
But in all seriousness FBO, I actually *do* respect *you* for saying that. Quite a bit actually. Too bad hardly anyone else on the progressive side can do explicitly what you have just done. At least you have a goal, and dont have to use artifice around here in achieving that goal or arguing that viewpoint. If I could buy you a beer right now, I actually would.
RE: Mass shootings/gun control - georgewebb - 08-11-2019 01:37 PM
(08-11-2019 12:54 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: I am for any measure that makes it harder, if not impossible, to buy, own, or operate a firearm.
You happy now?
Last I checked, that's not illegal for me to say that.
It's certainly not illegal to propose Constitutional amendments. In fact, it's been successfully done 27 times -- an average of more than one a decade.
It takes persuasion, but if people could be persuaded to adopt Prohibition, they can ultimately be persuaded to do just about anything.
RE: Mass shootings/gun control - Fort Bend Owl - 08-11-2019 02:01 PM
(08-11-2019 01:08 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: But in all seriousness FBO, I actually *do* respect *you* for saying that. Quite a bit actually. Too bad hardly anyone else on the progressive side can do explicitly what you have just done. At least you have a goal, and dont have to use artifice around here in achieving that goal or arguing that viewpoint. If I could buy you a beer right now, I actually would.
I'm a pretty boring dude. I don't drink (not opposed to it - just doesn't float my boat basically). I've never had a tobacco product in my life (my dad died when I was 5 basically from being a heavy smoker and I just told myself then I'd never try a cigarette). And I don't have any interest in using a firearm. That's probably the only thing that could change in the future I suppose.
And no George as boring as I am, the last thing I'd try to do is propose Constitutional amendments. My beliefs are my beliefs. I'll occasionally sprout them out when I feel like it. And yes, I realize the Constitution is what allows us to practice them out loud. About all I plan on doing is voting for the folks that seem to appeal most to my senses. Even then, I probably am going about it the wrong way having been in Texas for the past 33 years mostly on the losing side.
So I'll decline the beer offer, thanks. I suppose you can buy me a diet coke at one of the football games if you want. I probably shouldn't have those either but I'm too far down that path to change now.
RE: Mass shootings/gun control - tanqtonic - 08-11-2019 02:19 PM
(08-11-2019 02:01 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:(08-11-2019 01:08 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: But in all seriousness FBO, I actually *do* respect *you* for saying that. Quite a bit actually. Too bad hardly anyone else on the progressive side can do explicitly what you have just done. At least you have a goal, and dont have to use artifice around here in achieving that goal or arguing that viewpoint. If I could buy you a beer right now, I actually would.
I'm a pretty boring dude. I don't drink (not opposed to it - just doesn't float my boat basically). I've never had a tobacco product in my life (my dad died when I was 5 basically from being a heavy smoker and I just told myself then I'd never try a cigarette). And I don't have any interest in using a firearm. That's probably the only thing that could change in the future I suppose.
And no George as boring as I am, the last thing I'd try to do is propose Constitutional amendments. My beliefs are my beliefs. I'll occasionally sprout them out when I feel like it. And yes, I realize the Constitution is what allows us to practice them out loud. About all I plan on doing is voting for the folks that seem to appeal most to my senses. Even then, I probably am going about it the wrong way having been in Texas for the past 33 years mostly on the losing side.
So I'll decline the beer offer, thanks. I suppose you can buy me a diet coke at one of the football games if you want. I probably shouldn't have those either but I'm too far down that path to change now.
You got it. When I trundle down for a Rice game, I will make sure to get a diet coke into your hands.
RE: Mass shootings/gun control - Hambone10 - 08-11-2019 03:04 PM
(08-11-2019 10:54 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: Bad arguments guys on comparing gun purchases to driving.
...
60 percent of gun deaths are suicide. I know that. What I don't know is what people are trying to prove when they keep bringing up gun suicides or mass murder death numbers. Any death via gun - whether suicide, one-on-one killing, or a nutjob killing innocents - is unfortunate and costs our society unnecessary grief and money.
Edited to note what I'm responding to....
About the same number of people die each year from guns as automobiles.... eliminate suicides (because almost nobody uses a car to kill themselves... carbon monoxide poisoning isn't considered an auto related fatality) and it's about 3:1. Eliminate gang and drug related deaths and it's more like 5:1 though there are some auto fatalities related to that.
Is a death by gun any more tragic than a death by automobile? How about the 88,000 alcohol related deaths each year? All you need for that is to turn 21.
The reason why gun rights activists want to exclude suicides is that there is little to suggest that someone who uses a gun, if they didn't have a gun, wouldn't simply choose a different method. While certainly culturally different, suicides by hanging skyrocketed (relatively, from about 1 to 5 per 100,000) in Australia as suicides by gun declined from about 2 to 1 per 100,000. I recall looking at the UK with a similar result.
Absolutely, if there were no guns at all, there would be no deaths by guns... but that doesn't mean there would be no deaths... and they are just as tragic if by propane tank as gun.
Let me ask you this... if there were say 10,000 people out of a nation of 350mm who drove their cars 100 MPH... committing a serious crime... would you think a reasonable solution would be to ban cars? If you put restrictions so that cars couldn't go 100MPH (I don't know how you'd make it so a gun couldn't kill an innocent person, but I'll stay with it) you know that there are lots of people capable of modifying a car to get around such a restriction if they wanted to... and not only criminals would want to. SOME people just like to go from 0-the speed limit very fast, but almost never speed at all, certainly not 100mph, except perhaps on a track. What if driving 100MPH would save someone's life?
OR would you suggest that we do a better job of finding and arresting people who go 100+MPH?