Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Mass shootings/gun control
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
Rice93 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,672
Joined: Dec 2005
Reputation: 23
I Root For:
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #21
RE: Mass shootings/gun control
(08-04-2019 04:05 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  I guess 93 thinks it’s OK for an under 25 person to use a real “military” style weapon defending this country or as a member of the police force, but that same individual shouldn’t /can’t own or use a legally purchased so called “military style” rifle as a private citizen?

Also... if you wanted to make an exception as part of this proposal you could say that current and former members of the military who received specific training in the use of these "military" style weapons could use them privately. I'm not sure that's a great idea as there have been some ex-military mass shooters. Certainly there is data out there that would help in determining if this exception makes sense or not.
08-04-2019 04:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,343
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 340
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #22
RE: Mass shootings/gun control
(08-04-2019 04:02 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  
(08-04-2019 03:36 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(08-04-2019 03:05 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Without getting into the semantics of what a "military style rifle" means (please grant me this with the assumption that the lawmakers get it right when it comes to defining this when drafting the legislation)...

Would anybody have a problem with prohibiting ownership/use of this type of weapon for anybody under the age of 25? 21?

Thoughts?

Hate not to get into the semantics, but that is the core of it. "Military style rifle" means zero in functional terms.

Give me a specific function that is wished to limit and there can be a discussion.

A discussion on a nonsense term, is just that. Nonsense.

One might as well ask for a ban on meeflewumps style firearms.

I take it you do not know what the difference between a semi-automatic deer rifle and a 'military style weapon' is. That is actually healthy. I dont know the difference either. Much the same as I dont know the difference between a military style weapon and a meeflewumps style weapon.

You ask for a discussion on 'banning' ages from certain weapons --- I dont think anyone here would shirk from that discussion. Nor would they castigate another for a well delineated discussion. But in order to have a cogent discussion one has to understand what is delineated. Your (and every other call for this) does not do this in the slightest. Not meaning to be a prick, but that is the simple reality based on the choice of words.

Those are my thoughts.

OK... on vacation and thought I'd try to quickly participate in the discussion. I didn't have the time to go back through the posts to make sure I had the perfect definition of the weapon that was going to avoid generating the above response. I guess I'll wait for the next mass shooting when I return home (unfortunately I will likely not have long to wait) to revisit this proposal when I have more time to lay out a definition that can be discussed.

I am *so* sorry that I put your chosen emotionally-laden language bare.

Quote:Tanq, do you think that there are any styles of guns that would make sense to place age-restrictions on?

I think it is idiotic to consider age restrictions based on 'gun style', especially for two different reasons. One historical and functional factual, and another legal (Constitutional actually).

----

First, the modern semi-automatic firearm is functionally unchanged from about 1900. When one screams about military style or assault rifles, there is no difference from any plain jane semi-automatic.

They might be lighter because of polymers, or might be more robust (i.e. the AK that you can drop into mud and still fire), or might have a longer mean service time before failure (i.e. going through 1000 rounds as opposed to 200). But they are the same mechanical devices that have been readily available and around since 1900.

When you ask me to 'differentiate' on style -- I literally cannot do that. You are essentially asking one to differentiate between a 1983 Camaro and a 1981 Firebird. One of the problems is *not* the firearm style or function --- that has remained essentially static for the last 65 years. Yet everyone clamors for a ban based on 'style'. Hopefully this explanation helps cut through the liberalese that has prompted a rather large proportion of people (including presumably yourself) to clamor for a ban discriminated on 'style'. It is nonsensical to do that.

Yet when one does do that, the proverbial response is exemplified by yours:
Quote:I guess I'll wait for the next mass shooting when I return home (unfortunately I will likely not have long to wait) to revisit this proposal

----

Second, lets take your call for 'ban a gun with X (some functionality) for those under Y years'.

We arent talking about some random commercial object the Congress can ban (or order that everyone must purchase when they did so with respect to the ACA) as a matter of general course.

It is specifically a right granted in an explicitly independent and enumerated right.

So, in order to ban 'people under Y years' from using or operating the device, then the ban *has* to be proper for the population at large. What you are proposing (assuming that the 'military style weapon' is protected under the 2nd Amendment, whatever the fk the term means), would be exactly the same as a ban on abortions for anyone less that Y years of age. (and criminy, that one isnt even *in* the Constitution). Are you copacetic with that?

Or better yet, how about 'police dont need a warrant at all to search any person under 25 years age'? So the issue isnt an age one at all. The issue at hand *has* to deal with a subject *outside* the scope of a Constitutional right.

If you are prepared to put that rift into the Constitution in that manner, well that would not be my preference in the slightest.

Assuming that the 'military style' (again, whatever the fk that is) actually falls outside the ambit of the 2nd Amendment, that would allow one to distinguish the age discrimination aspect of it. But then, you run headlong into the 'functional' aspect of what makes a 'military style weapon' that falls into a class that fails to have such protection.

I think your avenue is extremely misguided, for at least those reasons.
(This post was last modified: 08-04-2019 04:51 PM by tanqtonic.)
08-04-2019 04:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tomball Owl Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,569
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 50
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Comal County
Post: #23
RE: Mass shootings/gun control
(08-04-2019 04:28 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(08-04-2019 04:05 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  I guess 93 thinks it’s OK for an under 25 person to use a real “military” style weapon defending this country or as a member of the police force, but that same individual shouldn’t /can’t own or use a legally purchased so called “military style” rifle as a private citizen?

Is a civilian trained in the same manner as someone in the military?

Probably not, but I don’t think any of these incidents are accidents resulting from lack of training.
08-04-2019 04:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,343
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 340
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #24
RE: Mass shootings/gun control
(08-04-2019 04:18 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  
(08-04-2019 04:10 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  
(08-04-2019 04:04 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  
(08-04-2019 04:00 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  
(08-04-2019 03:32 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  If you are under 25 you can't rent a car. I think you oppose my proposal but I'm not completely clear based on your response?

Yes you can rent a car if you are under 25. You just have to pay a premium. Or some companies waive the “young driver charge” if the driver has a valid AAA card.

With that being said... do you think it would be reasonable to place age-restictions on certain styles of weapons?

Wow, what an open ended question.

Yes, I think everyone should be restricted from owning/using “certain styles of weapons”, for example, tanks, RPGs, etc. Happy?

Specifically rifles, Tanq. Any thoughts on those? It's less specific than you want because I am not able to speak to the specifics of the weapons on the same level as you.

I actually answered the question and avoided the smug response that was available on the 'weapons' word. I think the term can and should be expanded to 'firearms that are readily available currently without excessive restriction' -- is that fair enough? My answer should cover those, including rifles and handguns.
08-04-2019 04:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rice93 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,672
Joined: Dec 2005
Reputation: 23
I Root For:
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #25
RE: Mass shootings/gun control
(08-04-2019 04:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(08-04-2019 04:02 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  
(08-04-2019 03:36 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(08-04-2019 03:05 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Without getting into the semantics of what a "military style rifle" means (please grant me this with the assumption that the lawmakers get it right when it comes to defining this when drafting the legislation)...

Would anybody have a problem with prohibiting ownership/use of this type of weapon for anybody under the age of 25? 21?

Thoughts?

Hate not to get into the semantics, but that is the core of it. "Military style rifle" means zero in functional terms.

Give me a specific function that is wished to limit and there can be a discussion.

A discussion on a nonsense term, is just that. Nonsense.

One might as well ask for a ban on meeflewumps style firearms.

I take it you do not know what the difference between a semi-automatic deer rifle and a 'military style weapon' is. That is actually healthy. I dont know the difference either. Much the same as I dont know the difference between a military style weapon and a meeflewumps style weapon.

You ask for a discussion on 'banning' ages from certain weapons --- I dont think anyone here would shirk from that discussion. Nor would they castigate another for a well delineated discussion. But in order to have a cogent discussion one has to understand what is delineated. Your (and every other call for this) does not do this in the slightest. Not meaning to be a prick, but that is the simple reality based on the choice of words.

Those are my thoughts.

OK... on vacation and thought I'd try to quickly participate in the discussion. I didn't have the time to go back through the posts to make sure I had the perfect definition of the weapon that was going to avoid generating the above response. I guess I'll wait for the next mass shooting when I return home (unfortunately I will likely not have long to wait) to revisit this proposal when I have more time to lay out a definition that can be discussed.

I am *so* sorry that I put your chosen emotionally-laden language bare. Nice churlish as **** response. Good for you.

What part of my first post to which this was directed contained "emotionally-laden language"?

Quote:
Quote:Tanq, do you think that there are any styles of guns that would make sense to place age-restrictions on?

I think it is idiotic to consider age restrictions based on 'gun style', especially for two different reasons. One historical and functional factual, and another legal (Constitutional actually).

----

First, the modern semi-automatic firearm is functionally unchanged from about 1900. When one screams about military style or assault rifles, there is no difference from any plain jane semi-automatic.

They might be lighter because of polymers, or might be more robust (i.e. the AK that you can drop into mud and still fire), or might have a longer mean service time before failure (i.e. going through 1000 rounds as opposed to 200). But they are the same mechanical devices that have been readily available and around since 1900.

When you ask me to 'differentiate' on style -- I literally cannot do that. You are essentially asking one to differentiate between a 1983 Camaro and a 1981 Firebird. One of the problems is *not* the firearm style or function --- that has remained essentially static for the last 65 years. Yet everyone clamors for a ban based on 'style'. Hopefully this explanation helps cut through the liberalese that has prompted a rather large proportion of people (including presumably yourself) to clamor for a ban discriminated on 'style'. It is nonsensical to do that.

Yet when one does do that, the proverbial response is exemplified by yours:
Quote:I guess I'll wait for the next mass shooting when I return home (unfortunately I will likely not have long to wait) to revisit this proposal

----

Second, lets take your call for 'ban a gun with X (some functionality) for those under Y years'.

We arent talking about some random commercial object the Congress can ban (or order that everyone must purchase when they did so with respect to the ACA) as a matter of general course.

It is specifically a right granted in an explicitly independent and enumerated right.

So, in order to ban 'people under Y years' from using or operating the device, then the ban *has* to be proper for the population at large. What you are proposing (assuming that the 'military style weapon' is protected under the 2nd Amendment, whatever the fk the term means), would be exactly the same as a ban on abortions for anyone less that Y years of age. (and criminy, that one isnt even *in* the Constitution). Are you copacetic with that?

Or better yet, how about 'police dont need a warrant at all to search any person under 25 years age'? So the issue isnt an age one at all. The issue at hand *has* to deal with a subject *outside* the scope of a Constitutional right.

If you are prepared to put that rift into the Constitution in that manner, well that would not be my preference in the slightest.

Assuming that the 'military style' (again, whatever the fk that is) actually falls outside the ambit of the 2nd Amendment, that would allow one to distinguish the age discrimination aspect of it. But then, you run headlong into the 'functional' aspect of what makes a 'military style weapon' that falls into a class that fails to have such protection.

I think your avenue is extremely misguided, for at least those reasons.

Got it. Thanks for the response.

In terms of the first issue, one would think that you could differentiate between those rifles that can fire (x) rounds/minute and have (y) capacity and then be reloaded in (z) minutes versus those that can't. Obviously, you are looking to differentiate between rifles that can be used to take down a bunch of people in a short time before the police can respond versus rifles that can't. Is there a way to do that? Is that impossible?

In terms of the second issue... I'll take you word for it that enacting an age restriction would be very problematic from a Constitutional standpoint.
(This post was last modified: 08-04-2019 05:14 PM by Rice93.)
08-04-2019 04:54 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,372
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 608
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #26
RE: Mass shootings/gun control
(08-04-2019 04:29 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Also... nobody has addressed my initial question as to the reasons behind the United States having so many more mass shootings compared to almost every other country. Do you guys have thoughts on that?

You haven't addressed my initial question. You first.

Here it is, to save you time:

"I think we have had relatively unfettered gun ownership in this country since 1776, yet these mass shootings are a relatively recent development. What was the difference between 2019 and 1919? I would like to hear some opinions."
(This post was last modified: 08-04-2019 05:21 PM by OptimisticOwl.)
08-04-2019 05:12 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,343
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 340
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #27
RE: Mass shootings/gun control
(08-04-2019 04:54 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  
(08-04-2019 04:47 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(08-04-2019 04:02 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  
(08-04-2019 03:36 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(08-04-2019 03:05 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Without getting into the semantics of what a "military style rifle" means (please grant me this with the assumption that the lawmakers get it right when it comes to defining this when drafting the legislation)...

Would anybody have a problem with prohibiting ownership/use of this type of weapon for anybody under the age of 25? 21?

Thoughts?

Hate not to get into the semantics, but that is the core of it. "Military style rifle" means zero in functional terms.

Give me a specific function that is wished to limit and there can be a discussion.

A discussion on a nonsense term, is just that. Nonsense.

One might as well ask for a ban on meeflewumps style firearms.

I take it you do not know what the difference between a semi-automatic deer rifle and a 'military style weapon' is. That is actually healthy. I dont know the difference either. Much the same as I dont know the difference between a military style weapon and a meeflewumps style weapon.

You ask for a discussion on 'banning' ages from certain weapons --- I dont think anyone here would shirk from that discussion. Nor would they castigate another for a well delineated discussion. But in order to have a cogent discussion one has to understand what is delineated. Your (and every other call for this) does not do this in the slightest. Not meaning to be a prick, but that is the simple reality based on the choice of words.

Those are my thoughts.

OK... on vacation and thought I'd try to quickly participate in the discussion. I didn't have the time to go back through the posts to make sure I had the perfect definition of the weapon that was going to avoid generating the above response. I guess I'll wait for the next mass shooting when I return home (unfortunately I will likely not have long to wait) to revisit this proposal when I have more time to lay out a definition that can be discussed.

I am *so* sorry that I put your chosen emotionally-laden language bare. Nice churlish as **** response. Good for you.

What part of my first post to which this was directed contained "emotionally-laden language"?

The continued emphasis on 'military style weapons' -- a term that literally has zero meaning in any form to distinguish weapons.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:Tanq, do you think that there are any styles of guns that would make sense to place age-restrictions on?

I think it is idiotic to consider age restrictions based on 'gun style', especially for two different reasons. One historical and functional factual, and another legal (Constitutional actually).

----

First, the modern semi-automatic firearm is functionally unchanged from about 1900. When one screams about military style or assault rifles, there is no difference from any plain jane semi-automatic.

They might be lighter because of polymers, or might be more robust (i.e. the AK that you can drop into mud and still fire), or might have a longer mean service time before failure (i.e. going through 1000 rounds as opposed to 200). But they are the same mechanical devices that have been readily available and around since 1900.

When you ask me to 'differentiate' on style -- I literally cannot do that. You are essentially asking one to differentiate between a 1983 Camaro and a 1981 Firebird. One of the problems is *not* the firearm style or function --- that has remained essentially static for the last 65 years. Yet everyone clamors for a ban based on 'style'. Hopefully this explanation helps cut through the liberalese that has prompted a rather large proportion of people (including presumably yourself) to clamor for a ban discriminated on 'style'. It is nonsensical to do that.

Yet when one does do that, the proverbial response is exemplified by yours:
Quote:I guess I'll wait for the next mass shooting when I return home (unfortunately I will likely not have long to wait) to revisit this proposal

----

Second, lets take your call for 'ban a gun with X (some functionality) for those under Y years'.

We arent talking about some random commercial object the Congress can ban (or order that everyone must purchase when they did so with respect to the ACA) as a matter of general course.

It is specifically a right granted in an explicitly independent and enumerated right.

So, in order to ban 'people under Y years' from using or operating the device, then the ban *has* to be proper for the population at large. What you are proposing (assuming that the 'military style weapon' is protected under the 2nd Amendment, whatever the fk the term means), would be exactly the same as a ban on abortions for anyone less that Y years of age. (and criminy, that one isnt even *in* the Constitution). Are you copacetic with that?

Or better yet, how about 'police dont need a warrant at all to search any person under 25 years age'? So the issue isnt an age one at all. The issue at hand *has* to deal with a subject *outside* the scope of a Constitutional right.

If you are prepared to put that rift into the Constitution in that manner, well that would not be my preference in the slightest.

Assuming that the 'military style' (again, whatever the fk that is) actually falls outside the ambit of the 2nd Amendment, that would allow one to distinguish the age discrimination aspect of it. But then, you run headlong into the 'functional' aspect of what makes a 'military style weapon' that falls into a class that fails to have such protection.

I think your avenue is extremely misguided, for at least those reasons.

Got it. Thanks for the response.

In terms of the first issue, one would think that you could differentiate between those rifles that can fire (x) rounds/minute and have (y) capacity and then be reloaded in (z) minutes versus those that can't.

Fair enough. Unless you want to make single shot, single breech load the requirement for all guns I dont think that you can.

The requirement to meet that would have to be the inclusion of every single semi-automatic out there.

Quote:Obviously, you are looking to differentiate between weapons that can be used to take down a bunch of people in a short time before the police can respond versus weapons that can't. Is there a way to do that? Is that impossible?

Not unless you ban magazines or clips. That is, banning semi-automatics.

One question, so why the fixation on 25 years?

Quote:In terms of the second issue... I'll take you word for it that enacting an age restriction would be very problematic from a Constitutional standpoint.

If you see a flaw in the Constitutional angle, please feel free to correct. That is an off-the cuff analysis, but one that I think cuts to the core.
08-04-2019 05:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,372
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 608
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #28
RE: Mass shootings/gun control
(08-04-2019 04:08 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  
(08-04-2019 03:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Turning your question to a *real* question (the one that Tomball answered): what is the expected outcome of the proposed ban of all firearms from people less than 25 that you put forth? Why 25? Why not 45? Why not 75?

25 because the thought is that perhaps an 18-year-old isn't mature enough to handle the responsibilities of owning and handling a weapon that can kill dozens of people in a few minutes? Incomplete brain development, etc...

I guess the expected outcome is that there might be less mass shooters under the age of 25?

Most of us were likely a lot more hot-headed/prone to stupid and rash decisions when we were 18 as compared to age 26.

I would entertain an age limit for guns if you would support raising the voting age to 25. I don't think people who are "hot-headed/prone to stupid and rash decisions" should be selecting our leaders.

Or driving a car.

Or buying alcohol.

Or allowed in Wal-mart without adult supervision.

Lots of things I think should be restricted for people under 25. Maybe 35.

I got my first gun at 12. Damn sight more responsible with it at 12 than half the people in Chicago over 25 who are killing each other.
08-04-2019 05:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,343
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 340
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #29
RE: Mass shootings/gun control
Straight up question for 93, since I answered several of his questions:

Is it your opinion that the 2nd Amendment should be abridged or nullified in order to curb mass shootings?

If so, what other rights granted under the Constitution should be, in your opinion, abridged simply because it is timely or convenient?
08-04-2019 05:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rice93 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,672
Joined: Dec 2005
Reputation: 23
I Root For:
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #30
RE: Mass shootings/gun control
(08-04-2019 10:04 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Well, it looks as though the Democrats will be making this a main plank in their platforms, so starting its own thread seems apropos.

On CNN this morning, the anchors and guests are hard at work declaring these shootings to be Trump’s fault.

I think we have had relatively unfettered gun ownership in this country since 1776, yet these mass shootings are a relatively recent development. What was the difference between 2019 and 1919? I would like to hear some opinions.

The differences I can think of are the internet and 24 hour cable news.

The candidates are calling for more, stricter gun laws. IMO, the only law that would slow these shootings to a trickle would be total illegality of possession of guns. Even then, there would be some, because people who want to kill people really don’t don’t care about staying within the law. Most shooters use legal guns and passed background checks.

We still have shootings in countries with the stiffest ownership laws - Sweden, New Zealand, Australia, England. We have yet to have one in Switzerland. Maybe the presence of guns is not the factor that causes these.

OO... is this your original question to which you referred?

One obvious difference is the proliferation of rifles in 2019 that are easily available while being incredibly efficient at killing lots of people in an extremely short time span as compared to those rifles that were readily available to the public in 1919.

I agree with you that the internet has led a greater number of people being radicalized into extreme positions and that the 24-hour news cycle has fed into this.
08-04-2019 05:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,343
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 340
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #31
RE: Mass shootings/gun control
(08-04-2019 05:19 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(08-04-2019 04:08 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  
(08-04-2019 03:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Turning your question to a *real* question (the one that Tomball answered): what is the expected outcome of the proposed ban of all firearms from people less than 25 that you put forth? Why 25? Why not 45? Why not 75?

25 because the thought is that perhaps an 18-year-old isn't mature enough to handle the responsibilities of owning and handling a weapon that can kill dozens of people in a few minutes? Incomplete brain development, etc...

I guess the expected outcome is that there might be less mass shooters under the age of 25?

Most of us were likely a lot more hot-headed/prone to stupid and rash decisions when we were 18 as compared to age 26.

I would entertain an age limit for guns if you would support raising the voting age to 25. I don't think people who are "hot-headed/prone to stupid and rash decisions" should be selecting our leaders.

Or driving a car.

Or buying alcohol.

Or allowed in Wal-mart without adult supervision.

Lots of things I think should be restricted for people under 25. Maybe 35.

I got my first gun at 12. Damn sight more responsible with it at 12 than half the people in Chicago over 25 who are killing each other.

Lets ban abortions for anyone less than 25. I would unhesitatingly state that that kills far more than mass shooters.

Age based discrimination of basic Constitutional rights based on whim can be fun sport for both sides.
08-04-2019 05:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,830
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #32
RE: Mass shootings/gun control
(08-04-2019 04:47 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  
(08-04-2019 04:28 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(08-04-2019 04:05 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  I guess 93 thinks it’s OK for an under 25 person to use a real “military” style weapon defending this country or as a member of the police force, but that same individual shouldn’t /can’t own or use a legally purchased so called “military style” rifle as a private citizen?

Is a civilian trained in the same manner as someone in the military?

Probably not, but I don’t think any of these incidents are accidents resulting from lack of training.

Could these people have passed a gun safety course? Would issues with their mental health been caught had they gone through a course? Would that course had put up enough of a barrier that they would have opted to purchase illegally, therefore increasing their chance of being caught?
08-04-2019 05:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,372
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 608
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #33
RE: Mass shootings/gun control
(08-04-2019 05:23 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  
(08-04-2019 10:04 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Well, it looks as though the Democrats will be making this a main plank in their platforms, so starting its own thread seems apropos.

On CNN this morning, the anchors and guests are hard at work declaring these shootings to be Trump’s fault.

I think we have had relatively unfettered gun ownership in this country since 1776, yet these mass shootings are a relatively recent development. What was the difference between 2019 and 1919? I would like to hear some opinions.

The differences I can think of are the internet and 24 hour cable news.

The candidates are calling for more, stricter gun laws. IMO, the only law that would slow these shootings to a trickle would be total illegality of possession of guns. Even then, there would be some, because people who want to kill people really don’t don’t care about staying within the law. Most shooters use legal guns and passed background checks.

We still have shootings in countries with the stiffest ownership laws - Sweden, New Zealand, Australia, England. We have yet to have one in Switzerland. Maybe the presence of guns is not the factor that causes these.

OO... is this your original question to which you referred?

One obvious difference is the proliferation of rifles in 2019 that are easily available while being incredibly efficient at killing lots of people in an extremely short time span as compared to those rifles that were readily available to the public in 1919.

I agree with you that the internet has led a greater number of people being radicalized into extreme positions and that the 24-hour news cycle has fed into this.

Now to answer your question.

I don't know. But I do know some countries have lots of guns without lots of problems. Switzerland

But I think "more of the same" is not going to solve the problem. Most of these people passed a check when they legally bought their guns, and a stricter check will not change much, if anything.

I like the "red flag" Idea. I would enact a loophole to HIPAA that would allow medical doctors and mental health workers to put people on a no buy list if they are concerned. But nothing short of a complete eradication of private ownership will make a dent. People who want to do this kind of thing don't care about the laws, and they will find a way around them, just like the drug dealers in Baltimore. I think Columbine struck a chord in the minds of some off balance people, and now mass shootings are on the menu of available actions.

But if we outlaw gun ownership, they will become as rare as a bottle of whiskey in 1928, and just as hard to get and use.
(This post was last modified: 08-04-2019 05:35 PM by OptimisticOwl.)
08-04-2019 05:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,343
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 340
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #34
RE: Mass shootings/gun control
(08-04-2019 05:23 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  
(08-04-2019 10:04 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Well, it looks as though the Democrats will be making this a main plank in their platforms, so starting its own thread seems apropos.

On CNN this morning, the anchors and guests are hard at work declaring these shootings to be Trump’s fault.

I think we have had relatively unfettered gun ownership in this country since 1776, yet these mass shootings are a relatively recent development. What was the difference between 2019 and 1919? I would like to hear some opinions.

The differences I can think of are the internet and 24 hour cable news.

The candidates are calling for more, stricter gun laws. IMO, the only law that would slow these shootings to a trickle would be total illegality of possession of guns. Even then, there would be some, because people who want to kill people really don’t don’t care about staying within the law. Most shooters use legal guns and passed background checks.

We still have shootings in countries with the stiffest ownership laws - Sweden, New Zealand, Australia, England. We have yet to have one in Switzerland. Maybe the presence of guns is not the factor that causes these.

OO... is this your original question to which you referred?

One obvious difference is the proliferation of rifles in 2019 that are easily available while being incredibly efficient at killing lots of people in an extremely short time span as compared to those rifles that were readily available to the public in 1919.

Actually not so. Ordinary citizens can (and did) own far worse guns in the 1920's.

That was a reason why the 'Tommy Gun' was the weapon of choice for the gangsters back then. Or, the BAR (essentially an early anti-armored car gun) was as easily available.

Criminy, my grandpa had a Tommy Gun.

The AR-15 has been commercially available since the late 60's, and AKs have been readily available as 'junk weapons' in this country since the 50's.

In the 1980s, (i.e. 40 years ago) the prevalance of the AK and the Chinese SKS amongst the hunters of this nation is kind of astronomical.

The Garand M1 has been a staple in the American rural areas since 1945, when literally almost every American GI in Korea and WW2 brought one home with them, *and* the US Government sold their absolute massive overstock of them.

All of those were 'readily available' to the public as of the dates mentioned. Tommy Guns dried up because of the 1934 National Firearms Act, iirc.

Please dont make facts up.
08-04-2019 05:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rice93 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,672
Joined: Dec 2005
Reputation: 23
I Root For:
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #35
RE: Mass shootings/gun control
(08-04-2019 05:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  One question, so why the fixation on 25 years?

I threw out the ages of 25 and 21. These are ages that have existing restrictions already in place when it comes to car rental and alcohol. Thinking of these ages as they relate to maturity/brain development.

Quote:In terms of the second issue... I'll take you word for it that enacting an age restriction would be very problematic from a Constitutional standpoint.

If you see a flaw in the Constitutional angle, please feel free to correct. That is an off-the cuff analysis, but one that I think cuts to the core.
[quote]

I'm not in a position to debate a Constitutional law question... not close to my areas of expertise.
08-04-2019 05:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,343
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 340
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #36
RE: Mass shootings/gun control
(08-04-2019 05:33 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(08-04-2019 05:23 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  
(08-04-2019 10:04 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Well, it looks as though the Democrats will be making this a main plank in their platforms, so starting its own thread seems apropos.

On CNN this morning, the anchors and guests are hard at work declaring these shootings to be Trump’s fault.

I think we have had relatively unfettered gun ownership in this country since 1776, yet these mass shootings are a relatively recent development. What was the difference between 2019 and 1919? I would like to hear some opinions.

The differences I can think of are the internet and 24 hour cable news.

The candidates are calling for more, stricter gun laws. IMO, the only law that would slow these shootings to a trickle would be total illegality of possession of guns. Even then, there would be some, because people who want to kill people really don’t don’t care about staying within the law. Most shooters use legal guns and passed background checks.

We still have shootings in countries with the stiffest ownership laws - Sweden, New Zealand, Australia, England. We have yet to have one in Switzerland. Maybe the presence of guns is not the factor that causes these.

OO... is this your original question to which you referred?

One obvious difference is the proliferation of rifles in 2019 that are easily available while being incredibly efficient at killing lots of people in an extremely short time span as compared to those rifles that were readily available to the public in 1919.

I agree with you that the internet has led a greater number of people being radicalized into extreme positions and that the 24-hour news cycle has fed into this.

Now to answer your question.

I don't know. But I do know some countries have lots of guns without lots of problems. Switzerland

But I think "more of the same" is not going to solve the problem. Most of these people passed a check when they legally bought their guns, and a stricter check will not change much, if anything.

I like the "red flag" Idea. I would enact a loophole to HIPAA that would allow medical doctors and mental health workers to put people on a no buy list if they are concerned. But nothing short of a complete eradication of private ownership will make a dent. People who want to do this kind of thing don't care about the laws, and they will find a way around them, just like the drug dealers in Baltimore. I think Columbine struck a chord in the minds of some off balance people, and now mass shootings are on the menu of available actions.

But if we outlaw gun ownership, they will become as rare as a bottle of whiskey in 1928, and just as hard to get and use.

Are you okay with the lack of due process with the "red flag"? Again, we are talking about a constitutional right here, for better or for worse.
08-04-2019 05:40 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,343
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 340
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #37
RE: Mass shootings/gun control
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:In terms of the second issue... I'll take you word for it that enacting an age restriction would be very problematic from a Constitutional standpoint.

If you see a flaw in the Constitutional angle, please feel free to correct. That is an off-the cuff analysis, but one that I think cuts to the core.

I'm not in a position to debate a Constitutional law question... not close to my areas of expertise.

Not necessarily a debate on 'Constitutional' or not as a means to slam the door shut on debate, but do you see the issues that become fairly problematic with such a ban based on age? (and not just for guns, mind you)
(This post was last modified: 08-04-2019 05:44 PM by tanqtonic.)
08-04-2019 05:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rice93 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,672
Joined: Dec 2005
Reputation: 23
I Root For:
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #38
RE: Mass shootings/gun control
(08-04-2019 05:22 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Straight up question for 93, since I answered several of his questions:

Is it your opinion that the 2nd Amendment should be abridged or nullified in order to curb mass shootings?

If so, what other rights granted under the Constitution should be, in your opinion, abridged simply because it is timely or convenient?

Does the 2nd amendment specifically grant the ownership/use of any rifle that one can imagine into existence to citizens? As I understand it, not every citizen in the United States can purchase a fully-automatic machine gun (unless it was made pre-1986, certain states, etc., etc.). How do we restrict citizens' access to these weapons when it comes to the 2nd amendment? Honest question... I don't know the answer to this.
08-04-2019 05:43 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rice93 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,672
Joined: Dec 2005
Reputation: 23
I Root For:
Location:

New Orleans Bowl
Post: #39
RE: Mass shootings/gun control
(08-04-2019 05:43 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
Quote:[quote]
In terms of the second issue... I'll take you word for it that enacting an age restriction would be very problematic from a Constitutional standpoint.

If you see a flaw in the Constitutional angle, please feel free to correct. That is an off-the cuff analysis, but one that I think cuts to the core.
Quote:I'm not in a position to debate a Constitutional law question... not close to my areas of expertise.

Not necessarily a debate on 'Constitutional' or not as a means to slam the door shut on debate, but do you see the issues that become fairly problematic with such a ban based on age? (and not just for guns, mind you)

Yes... your point it well-taken when it comes to the issues with the Constitution when age-restrictions come into play.
08-04-2019 05:45 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,343
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 340
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #40
RE: Mass shootings/gun control
(08-04-2019 05:43 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  
(08-04-2019 05:22 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Straight up question for 93, since I answered several of his questions:

Is it your opinion that the 2nd Amendment should be abridged or nullified in order to curb mass shootings?

If so, what other rights granted under the Constitution should be, in your opinion, abridged simply because it is timely or convenient?

Does the 2nd amendment specifically grant the ownership/use of any rifle that one can imagine into existence to citizens?

Even under Heller it does not. It does state that the individual right extends to weapons that are in 'common and ordinary use.'

Quote:As I understand it, not every citizen in the United States can purchase a fully-automatic machine gun (unless it was made pre-1986, certain states, etc., etc.). How do we restrict citizens' access to these weapons when it comes to the 2nd amendment? Honest question... I don't know the answer to this.

Automatic weapons have never been in 'common and ordinary use'. Thus they can be restricted with minimal implications. (i.e. when I mean 'minimal' it truly is 'minimal', all the government has to do is state *any* rational reason for the restriction, an amazingly easy hurdle to clear.)
08-04-2019 05:48 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2020 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2020 MyBB Group.