The unofficial online home for fans of the Western Michigan University Broncos. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(08-07-2019 09:22 AM)Rasser Wrote:  

(08-07-2019 08:57 AM)Aimless1 Wrote:  

(08-07-2019 08:31 AM)Rasser Wrote:  

(08-07-2019 05:36 AM)Aimless1 Wrote:  Rasser, you spew a lot of words and say very little. An honest question looking for discussion and not argument. Apparently you don't have anything constructive to offer, which is fine.

I have a sense we all agree gun violence is a problem. So if "cutting to the solution is part of our problem" what are the issues we need to address? Intelligent rational people should be able to discuss whether or not we agree.

I’m not getting that sense at all. You can’t solve a problem without a problem definition.

So offer a definition of the problem. Otherwise the circle jerk continues with no progress.

Thought I was clear on the problem definition. Repeatedly.

Perhaps not as clear as you believe. Can you succinctly state it?

My attempt (problem definition):

Mass killing of civilians by civilians.

Acts of terror.

Too broad?

(08-07-2019 09:56 AM)ess Wrote:  My attempt (problem definition):

Mass killing of civilians by civilians.

Acts of terror.

Too broad?

A good start I think.

For me gun violence means death or injury by gun(s). This would include mass shootings, murder, domestic violence, criminal acts, suicide and accidental deaths.

I found the following article about gun ownership and mass killing interesting and not preachy. https://bigthink.com/politics-current-af...belltitem2

(08-07-2019 11:27 AM)Aimless1 Wrote:  For me gun violence means death or injury by gun(s). This would include mass shootings, murder, domestic violence, criminal acts, suicide and accidental deaths.

Important consideration

Realizing then that none of the proposed solutions would be applicable to situations like Oklahoma City, Charlottesville, 911, or any other situation where a terrorist might choose to use an alternative means.

Other than mental health screening or elimination due to subversive activity I would agree. I don't think there is any one solution and I certainly no solution is universal.

How about we at least TRY banning assault weapons, body armor - stuff that kills dozens of innocent people in a short time and makes life more dangerous for law enforcement personnel?

We have a people killing people problem. With weapons that are very effective killing people rapidly, unprovoked, and because of no actions that they took of their own.

Lately it’s been mass shootings with weapons designed for war. I think any mass killing like Oklahoma City would fit in that mode.

Very unique to us as a industrialized, 1st world country as well.

(08-07-2019 11:53 AM)Aimless1 Wrote:  Other than mental health screening or elimination due to subversive activity I would agree. I don't think there is any one solution and I certainly no solution is universal.

We as a nation have a history of solving big problems. We aren’t single threaded when we don’t have to be.

(08-07-2019 03:34 PM)MajorHoople Wrote:  How about we at least TRY banning assault weapons, body armor - stuff that kills dozens of innocent people in a short time and make life more dangerous for law enforcement personnel?

Assault style weapons (AK47/AR15) use .223 ammo and are not like other semi auto weapons. They are designed strictly to kill humans. If you are hit anyplace on your body by this round you will most likely die. The ammo causes significant damage and is designed for that purpose. Your odds of survival are quite low. Worse? They are stupid cheap starting at $300 or so.

Other typical rifle rounds may pass through the body and may not cause death. You actually have a good chance of living if not hit in the vitals. Even hollow point handgun ammo does not have the same impact that the .223 round does.

It makes perfect sense to ban public use of these weapons and ban the manufacture of the ammunition they use.

(08-07-2019 03:53 PM)Aimless1 Wrote:  It makes perfect sense to ban public use of these weapons and ban the manufacture of the ammunition they use.

Serious question, asked out of ignorance.

What weapons are government agents allowed to use when dealing with a civilian population?

For example:

Boston/Watertown 2013

From the (left leaning) Washington Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-...n-bombing/

As the Atlantic reported last year, we haven’t seen a lockdown and an occupation of an American city on the scale of what happened in Boston after the marathon since the Watts riots — not in Oklahoma City after the Murrah Federal Building bombing in 1995, not in Atlanta after the 1996 bombing in Centennial Olympic Park, not in D.C. during the 2002 sniper attacks, not after a series of pipe bombs went off in federal courthouse in San Diego in 2008, not during the dozens of instances in which a mass killer or serial killer was still at large. In Boston, 19,000 National Guard troops moved into an American city, not to put down a civil uprising, quell riots or dispel an insurrection, but to search for a single man. Armored vehicles motored up and down residential neighborhoods. Innocent people were confronted in their homes at gunpoint or had guns pointed at them for merely peering through the curtains of their own windows.

. . . for the sake of argument, let’s assume that there was nothing untoward, unconstitutional or heavy-handed about the police response in Boston, or in Watertown specifically. Perhaps this was an exceptional event, one worthy of one of the largest police responses in American history. If that is indeed the case, we need to establish some fire lines, or else risk allowing the exceptional to become routine. If Boston is going to become a precedent, it needs to be a precedent for future Bostons and only for future Bostons, so we aren’t locking down entire towns or cities every time a high school kid uses a glass jar and some Draino to blow up a few mailboxes. (For an example of how the “shut it down” reaction is catching on, see New York City this week, where city officials shut down the subway for an hour to catch a man suspected of stealing necklaces.)

So what exactly made Boston different from the D.C. sniper attacks or the bombing in Olympic Park? It wasn’t the body count. It wasn’t that the suspects were especially well-armed. They appear to have had one gun between them and made bombs from supplies that can all be obtained legally. It doesn’t appear that they were any more vicious, indiscriminate or bloodthirsty than prior fugitive bombers or mass shooters. (Which isn’t to say they weren’t all of those things — only that there’s little evidence they were worse than killers other cities have dealt with differently.)

Were the heavy-handed door-to-door searches and lockdown in Watertown justified by the belief that Tsarnaev was holed up in that particular neighborhood? Are we okay with the tactics because they were geographically limited and only lasted for about a day? What if Tsanaev hadn’t been found for another week? How large a section of a city are we comfortable locking down in such a manner, and for how long a period of time?


The second amendment was created for a reason.

And like it or not

It hasn't gone anywhere.

It seems reasonable (to me) to ban anything the government does not, and and cannot use against it's own people in a civilian setting.

Radical view?

(08-07-2019 04:21 PM)ess Wrote:  

(08-07-2019 03:53 PM)Aimless1 Wrote:  It makes perfect sense to ban public use of these weapons and ban the manufacture of the ammunition they use.

Serious question, asked out of ignorance.

What weapons are government agents allowed to use when dealing with a civilian population?

For example:

Boston/Watertown 2013

From the (left leaning) Washington Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-...n-bombing/

As the Atlantic reported last year, we haven’t seen a lockdown and an occupation of an American city on the scale of what happened in Boston after the marathon since the Watts riots — not in Oklahoma City after the Murrah Federal Building bombing in 1995, not in Atlanta after the 1996 bombing in Centennial Olympic Park, not in D.C. during the 2002 sniper attacks, not after a series of pipe bombs went off in federal courthouse in San Diego in 2008, not during the dozens of instances in which a mass killer or serial killer was still at large. In Boston, 19,000 National Guard troops moved into an American city, not to put down a civil uprising, quell riots or dispel an insurrection, but to search for a single man. Armored vehicles motored up and down residential neighborhoods. Innocent people were confronted in their homes at gunpoint or had guns pointed at them for merely peering through the curtains of their own windows.

. . . for the sake of argument, let’s assume that there was nothing untoward, unconstitutional or heavy-handed about the police response in Boston, or in Watertown specifically. Perhaps this was an exceptional event, one worthy of one of the largest police responses in American history. If that is indeed the case, we need to establish some fire lines, or else risk allowing the exceptional to become routine. If Boston is going to become a precedent, it needs to be a precedent for future Bostons and only for future Bostons, so we aren’t locking down entire towns or cities every time a high school kid uses a glass jar and some Draino to blow up a few mailboxes. (For an example of how the “shut it down” reaction is catching on, see New York City this week, where city officials shut down the subway for an hour to catch a man suspected of stealing necklaces.)

So what exactly made Boston different from the D.C. sniper attacks or the bombing in Olympic Park? It wasn’t the body count. It wasn’t that the suspects were especially well-armed. They appear to have had one gun between them and made bombs from supplies that can all be obtained legally. It doesn’t appear that they were any more vicious, indiscriminate or bloodthirsty than prior fugitive bombers or mass shooters. (Which isn’t to say they weren’t all of those things — only that there’s little evidence they were worse than killers other cities have dealt with differently.)

Were the heavy-handed door-to-door searches and lockdown in Watertown justified by the belief that Tsarnaev was holed up in that particular neighborhood? Are we okay with the tactics because they were geographically limited and only lasted for about a day? What if Tsanaev hadn’t been found for another week? How large a section of a city are we comfortable locking down in such a manner, and for how long a period of time?


The second amendment was created for a reason.

And like it or not

It hasn't gone anywhere.

It seems reasonable (to me) to ban anything the government does not, and and cannot use against it's own people in a civilian setting.

Radical view?

Sure. But....ATF begs to differ. I'd LOVE to have a nuclear tip'd ordinance that I could fire with an RPG, or maybe an old F4 with rockets under wing to fly around with.

Be DAMN COOL. I'd get a bone just thinking about it, but they say "no".

2nd Amendment says I have the right to bear those arms, right?

Quote:I'd LOVE to have a nuclear tip'd ordinance that I could fire with an RPG, or maybe an old F4 with rockets under wing to fly around with.

Are you saying the the US government can (legally) use those weapons against it's own civilian population?

(08-07-2019 04:33 PM)ess Wrote:  

Quote:I'd LOVE to have a nuclear tip'd ordinance that I could fire with an RPG, or maybe an old F4 with rockets under wing to fly around with.

Are you saying the the US government can (legally) use those weapons against it's own civilian population?

NO, I'm saying there are limits on arms right now. That was an extreme example for the sake of emphasis.

How'd they get around the 2nd Amendment to restrict the public from not having access to arms that the military has at their disposal?

You need a NFA Class 3 license to own a RPG. Isn't that a restriction?

If the argument that the military is a threat and people need to be armed due to defending themselves against tyranny, that's relevant, right?

As far as equivalent arming, between the police force and civilian population. That's a great discussion. Not sure about the relevance to our problem we're having, but it's a discussion all unto itself.

Where do you draw the line? We used to have distinct lines, and the police got restrictions lifted because they ran into situations where they were simply outgunned. Do we say "current state" or "desired state" of weapons that are pervasive in the public now.

(08-07-2019 04:43 PM)Rasser Wrote:  As far as equivalent arming, between the police force and civilian population. That's a great discussion. Not sure about the relevance to our problem we're having, but it's a discussion all unto itself.

IMHO

It's relevant (only) if you are talking about / recommending banning weapons that our government can use against us.

Are you proposing that?

(08-07-2019 04:56 PM)ess Wrote:  

(08-07-2019 04:43 PM)Rasser Wrote:  As far as equivalent arming, between the police force and civilian population. That's a great discussion. Not sure about the relevance to our problem we're having, but it's a discussion all unto itself.

IMHO

It's relevant (only) if you are talking about / recommending banning weapons that our government can use against us.

Are you proposing that?

I'm not proposing anything. Hell, I'd be happy for some alignment that there's a problem.

There's not a "silver bullet" to this problem, and all the red herrings due to agendas trying to deflect banning don't help either.

"Mentally ill" - Ok, only in the USA. So we're a mental nation.
Video Games - "See Above"
Not enough prayer - "See Above".

Since the majority of these mass shootings and killings are perpetrated by younger white men. I think maybe we outta ban them.

(08-07-2019 04:56 PM)ess Wrote:  

(08-07-2019 04:43 PM)Rasser Wrote:  As far as equivalent arming, between the police force and civilian population. That's a great discussion. Not sure about the relevance to our problem we're having, but it's a discussion all unto itself.

IMHO

It's relevant (only) if you are talking about / recommending banning weapons that our government can use against us.

Are you proposing that?

You know, that's up for discussion as well. There are huge debates about the president being able to suspect "posse comitatus" with an executive order.

In 1995 Warren Burger (chief justice of the US Supreme Court and a Republican) wrote that we get the 2nd Amendment wrong. He argued that it guarantees the states to maintain a well armed militia but does not grant any individual the right to bear arms. At that time there had never been a court ruling allowing or acknowledging an individual's right to bear arms. See https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/na...direct=on.

Why bring this up. Not to argue the 2nd Amendment. I am not qualified to do so. But if we believe Mr Burger, then the government may arm itself at will and the public has no reasonable expectation they should own or bear arms. Should the government own and use weapons not available to the general public? See automatic weapons vs semi-automatic weapons. The US government has and uses automatic weapons legally. The public is banned from owning automatic weapons but allowed to have semi-automatic guns.

I still want an RPG that fires off huge ordinance. That'd be FUN! :-)

(08-07-2019 06:47 PM)Aimless1 Wrote:  In 1995 Warren Burger (chief justice of the US Supreme Court and a Republican) wrote that we get the 2nd Amendment wrong. He argued that it guarantees the states to maintain a well armed militia but does not grant any individual the right to bear arms. At that time there had never been a court ruling allowing or acknowledging an individual's right to bear arms. See https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/na...direct=on.

Why bring this up. Not to argue the 2nd Amendment. I am not qualified to do so. But if we believe Mr Burger, then the government may arm itself at will and the public has no reasonable expectation they should own or bear arms.

The reason for bringing it up seems self evident (to me).

I'm (not close) to knowledgable about the issue.

Having said that, it appears that Warren Burger does not necessarily get the final say .

District of Columbia vs Heller

We might ask ourselves

What was the motivation for the second amendment?

Anyone?

Dear Broncos,
The motivation for the second amendment was to be able to have militias, because we did not have a standing army at the time.
As far as the government using its ability to use force against the civilian population, it happened twice in the early years of our country.
Shays Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion. Both were put down by a show of military force.