News:

Welcome to week4paug.net 2.1 - same as it ever was! Most features have been restored, but please keep us posted on ANY issues you may be having HERE:  https://week4paug.net/index.php/topic,23937

Main Menu

Gun Talk Re: have you heard about...?

Started by emay, July 20, 2012, 09:35:53 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

mehead

Quote from: mbw on October 03, 2017, 11:29:29 AM
Quote from: mehead on October 03, 2017, 11:28:00 AM
Quote from: gah on October 03, 2017, 11:00:06 AM
Quote from: mehead on October 03, 2017, 10:39:52 AM
Quote from: emay on October 03, 2017, 10:09:43 AM
One of the band members of a band playing that weekend made an interesting (logical) comment. Looks like his stance has changed on gun control.

Quote"I've been a proponent of the 2nd amendment my entire life. Until the events of last night. I cannot express how wrong I was. We actually have members of our crew with [Concealed Handgun Licenses], and legal firearms on the bus," Keeter wrote. "They were useless." He continued:

We couldn't touch them for fear police might think we were part of the massacre and shoot us. A small group (or one man) laid waste to a city with dedicated, fearless police officers desperately trying to help, because of access to an insane amount of fire power.

Enough is enough.

We need gun control RIGHT. NOW. My biggest regret is that I stubbornly didn't realize it until my brothers on the road and myself were threatened by it. We are unbelievably fortunate to not be among the number of victims killed or seriously wounded by this maniac.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/arts-and-entertainment/wp/2017/10/02/i-cannot-express-how-wrong-i-was-country-guitarist-changes-mind-on-gun-control-after-vegas/

but Sandy Hook couldn't change his mind. Whatever.

Yeah, I think that's the one where it really hit that, hey, nobody in power gives a fuck. And this is what we are going to have to live with as a routine part of American life. I don't know what it will take to wake the fuck up.

Nothing will. Anyway, let's shift our focus back to where it should be. How about those football players kneeling?

Sons of Bitches!

His eyes were clean and pure but his mind was so deranged

Buffalo Budd

Quote from: slslbs on October 03, 2017, 11:50:33 AM
Quote from: Buffalo Budd on October 03, 2017, 11:28:53 AM
My dad's response when I said this will hopefully push Congress to make some much needed changes to the gun laws in the US...


QuoteDon't go there. The guns he had were banned and illegal already... If it wasn't a gun, he could have mowed them down with a truck. The issue is not about guns, but about removing God from their schools and society. About being more concerned about transgender bathrooms than about a moral compass



This sort of shit used to make me so angry but now it just frustrates me to the point of despair.

opinions will vary, and this won't change the mind of people like your dad,  but according to CNN
QuotePaddock bought multiple firearms in the past, but investigators believe the firearms were purchased legally, a law enforcement official said. The official said initial reports suggest at least one rifle was altered to function as an automatic weapon.
I don't know a lot about guns but I do know that there are several that are readily available legally that are quite easy to modify into an automatic weapon - that is likely a selling point for them

I pointed those facts out to him previous to his diatribe, he doesn't believe the media so I need to let it go.


And RJ, I get your point about the God thing. The irony of it is, he has a jaded view of what God/morals really should be about. I believe it's love, acceptance and peace.
Everything is connected, because it's all being created by this one consciousness. And we are tiny reflections of the mind that is creating the universe.

gah

#677
Quote from: Buffalo Budd on October 03, 2017, 11:59:27 AM
Quote from: slslbs on October 03, 2017, 11:50:33 AM
Quote from: Buffalo Budd on October 03, 2017, 11:28:53 AM
My dad's response when I said this will hopefully push Congress to make some much needed changes to the gun laws in the US...


QuoteDon't go there. The guns he had were banned and illegal already... If it wasn't a gun, he could have mowed them down with a truck. The issue is not about guns, but about removing God from their schools and society. About being more concerned about transgender bathrooms than about a moral compass



This sort of shit used to make me so angry but now it just frustrates me to the point of despair.

opinions will vary, and this won't change the mind of people like your dad,  but according to CNN
QuotePaddock bought multiple firearms in the past, but investigators believe the firearms were purchased legally, a law enforcement official said. The official said initial reports suggest at least one rifle was altered to function as an automatic weapon.
I don't know a lot about guns but I do know that there are several that are readily available legally that are quite easy to modify into an automatic weapon - that is likely a selling point for them

I pointed those facts out to him previous to his diatribe, he doesn't believe the media so I need to let it go.


And RJ, I get your point about the God thing. The irony of it is, he has a jaded view of what God/morals really should be about. I believe it's love, acceptance and peace.

That's cause you're a goddamn hippie! Now get off my lawn! And get a haircut for God's sake!

Also, this:

QuoteThese people are indeed deranged and angry and disturbed, and the full story of today's killer is not yet known. It is possible that he will prove to have motives or connections beyond whatever was happening in his own mind (as Graeme Wood explains). But we know that if the killers were other than whites with "normal" names, the responsibility for their crime would not be assigned solely to themselves and their tortured psyches.

If they had Arab-sounding names, this would be a new episode of jihad. How often has Donald Trump invoked "San Bernardino" in his speeches, as shorthand for the terrorist threat in our heartland?
If they were Mexican, they would demonstrate the perils of immigration, and that Mexico is "not sending its best people."
If they had been illegal immigrants, they'd dramatize the need to crack down harder, right now.
And if they had been black, I shudder to imagine the consequences.
* * *

This is who we are.

I was going to add, "—unless we decide to change," but that's the kind of mandatory-uplift note you put, because you have to, at the end of a speech.

This is who we are.


https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/10/two-dark-american-truths-from-las-vegas/541692/
Sometimes we live no particular way but our own.

runawayjimbo

Quote from: mbw on October 03, 2017, 11:26:38 AM
Quote from: VDB on October 03, 2017, 10:14:57 AM
Quote from: rowjimmy on October 03, 2017, 10:03:15 AM
Quote from: slslbs on October 03, 2017, 09:38:28 AM
no doubt, the NRA will say if there were more armed concertgoers, this wouldn't have happened.
:roll:

Yep. A sea of handguns attempting to shoot back at the guy across the street on the 32nd floor would have had excellent results.

The gun lobby will at least realize this much, leaving them with nothing of use to add here. And in so doing, revealing a gaping hole in their position.

the formerly pro 2nd amendment guitarist for this band( or maybe another band there) readily admitted being armed would have had no effect, and it has changed his position:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/ct-country-guitarist-vegas-shooting-gun-control-20171002-story.html

eta:  if you can't find an armed public at a country music festival in Nevada where can you?

The flipside of that argument:  when you actually take a hard look at the data, there is little reason to think the gun control policies on the table would have much/any effect on the horrific amount of gun deaths in this country.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/i-used-to-think-gun-control-was-the-answer-my-research-told-me-otherwise/2017/10/03/d33edca6-a851-11e7-92d1-58c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.733d8079dfbe

QuoteI used to think gun control was the answer. My research told me otherwise.

Before I started researching gun deaths, gun-control policy used to frustrate me. I wished the National Rifle Association would stop blocking common-sense gun-control reforms such as banning assault weapons, restricting silencers, shrinking magazine sizes and all the other measures that could make guns less deadly.

Then, my colleagues and I at FiveThirtyEight spent three months analyzing all 33,000 lives ended by guns each year in the United States, and I wound up frustrated in a whole new way. We looked at what interventions might have saved those people, and the case for the policies I'd lobbied for crumbled when I examined the evidence. The best ideas left standing were narrowly tailored interventions to protect subtypes of potential victims, not broad attempts to limit the lethality of guns.

I researched the strictly tightened gun laws in Britain and Australia and concluded that they didn't prove much about what America's policy should be. Neither nation experienced drops in mass shootings or other gun related-crime that could be attributed to their buybacks and bans. Mass shootings were too rare in Australia for their absence after the buyback program to be clear evidence of progress. And in both Australia and Britain, the gun restrictions had an ambiguous effect on other gun-related crimes or deaths.

When I looked at the other oft-praised policies, I found out that no gun owner walks into the store to buy an "assault weapon." It's an invented classification that includes any semi-automatic that has two or more features, such as a bayonet mount, a rocket-propelled grenade-launcher mount, a folding stock or a pistol grip. But guns are modular, and any hobbyist can easily add these features at home, just as if they were snapping together Legos.

As for silencers — they deserve that name only in movies, where they reduce gunfire to a soft puick puick. In real life, silencers limit hearing damage for shooters but don't make gunfire dangerously quiet. An AR-15 with a silencer is about as loud as a jackhammer. Magazine limits were a little more promising, but a practiced shooter could still change magazines so fast as to make the limit meaningless.

As my co-workers and I kept looking at the data, it seemed less and less clear that one broad gun-control restriction could make a big difference. Two-thirds of gun deaths in the United States every year are suicides. Almost no proposed restriction would make it meaningfully harder for people with guns on hand to use them. I couldn't even answer my most desperate question: If I had a friend who had guns in his home and a history of suicide attempts, was there anything I could do that would help?

However, the next-largest set of gun deaths — 1 in 5 — were young men aged 15 to 34, killed in homicides. These men were most likely to die at the hands of other young men, often related to gang loyalties or other street violence. And the last notable group of similar deaths was the 1,700 women murdered per year, usually as the result of domestic violence. Far more people were killed in these ways than in mass-shooting incidents, but few of the popularly floated policies were tailored to serve them.

By the time we published our project, I didn't believe in many of the interventions I'd heard politicians tout. I was still anti-gun, at least from the point of view of most gun owners, and I don't want a gun in my home, as I think the risk outweighs the benefits. But I can't endorse policies whose only selling point is that gun owners hate them. Policies that often seem as if they were drafted by people who have encountered guns only as a figure in a briefing book or an image on the news.

Instead, I found the most hope in more narrowly tailored interventions. Potential suicide victims, women menaced by their abusive partners and kids swept up in street vendettas are all in danger from guns, but they each require different protections.

Older men, who make up the largest share of gun suicides, need better access to people who could care for them and get them help. Women endangered by specific men need to be prioritized by police, who can enforce restraining orders prohibiting these men from buying and owning guns. Younger men at risk of violence need to be identified before they take a life or lose theirs and to be connected to mentors who can help them de-escalate conflicts.

Even the most data-driven practices, such as New Orleans' plan to identify gang members for intervention based on previous arrests and weapons seizures, wind up more personal than most policies floated. The young men at risk can be identified by an algorithm, but they have to be disarmed one by one, personally — not en masse as though they were all interchangeable. A reduction in gun deaths is most likely to come from finding smaller chances for victories and expanding those solutions as much as possible. We save lives by focusing on a range of tactics to protect the different kinds of potential victims and reforming potential killers, not from sweeping bans focused on the guns themselves.
Quote from: DoW on October 26, 2013, 09:06:17 PM
I'm drunk but that was epuc

Quote from: mehead on June 22, 2016, 11:52:42 PM
The Line still sucks. Hard.

Quote from: Gumbo72203 on July 25, 2017, 08:21:56 PM
well boys, we fucked up by not being there.

PIE-GUY

Gun control measures aren't about solving the problems mentioned there. They are simply steps to limit guns and lessen their impact on society.

Every gun has to potential to kill. Some are designed to kill people first and foremost. It is my opinion that fewer of those guns should be sold than tomorrow than are sold today. Just as fewer people should buy cigarettes tomorrow than bought them today. In this way, we can turn the tide of gun deaths the other way.

Just as MADD was able to do with Drunk Driving. Just as the Surgeon General warnings have done with cigarettes. Just as seat belt laws have done with vehicle deaths. Just as the TSA has done to limit plane crashes. and on and on.

I've been coming to where I am from the get go
Find that I can groove with the beat when I let go
So put your worries on hold
Get up and groove with the rhythm in your soul

mattstick


Welp, if some research says it won't work then there's no point in trying anything I guess.


sls.stormyrider

so the guy makes some good points. but consider

the shooter in the Gabby Giffords case was tackled when changing his magazine. A smaller clip would have saved lives

One thing prez GWB talked about but never pursued was a "fingerprint lock" on triggers - maybe reducing stolen gun trafficking.

Prohibiting sale of after market conversion kits from semi automatic to full automatic

Prohibiting people on the no fly list to purchase guns

Prohibiting the kind of ammo supposedly used by this guy (available in a street legal AR15) the bullet can go through a wall (or a person) and still have enough force to kill someone else.

Yes, we need mental health care and a lot of things. Will all gun violence go away? never. Can we save some lives? I would bet on it
"toss away stuff you don't need in the end
but keep what's important, and know who's your friend"
"It's a 106 miles to Chicago. We got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark and we're wearing sunglasses."

kellerb


runawayjimbo

Quote from: PIE-GUY on October 03, 2017, 04:36:21 PM
Gun control measures aren't about solving the problems mentioned there. They are simply steps to limit guns and lessen their impact on society.

Hold on, gun control measures are not about solving the problem of unacceptable levels of gun violence? That's not what I've been told.

Quote from: PIE-GUY on October 03, 2017, 04:36:21 PM
Every gun has to potential to kill. Some are designed to kill people first and foremost. It is my opinion that fewer of those guns should be sold than tomorrow than are sold today. Just as fewer people should buy cigarettes tomorrow than bought them today. In this way, we can turn the tide of gun deaths the other way.

That's a fine opinion to have and one on which you'll get no disagreement from me. But there is at least half of the country who has a differing opinion. So the question goes back to policy:  how can we enact measures that reduce the tragic number of gun deaths every year?

Quote from: PIE-GUY on October 03, 2017, 04:36:21 PM
Just as MADD was able to do with Drunk Driving. Just as the Surgeon General warnings have done with cigarettes. Just as seat belt laws have done with vehicle deaths. Just as the TSA has done to limit plane crashes. and on and on.

MADD probably not the best analogy as it is a private organization, not a gov't agency. Cigarettes/seat belts were effective because of they educated people to the dangers of the behaviors (MADD falls in here too). I think you meant FAA re air traffic, but that has been around pretty much since the beginning of commercial air travel; it's been advances in technology that has made it safer. Fuck the TSA.

Quote from: mattstick on October 03, 2017, 04:41:47 PM

Welp, if some research says it won't work then there's no point in trying anything I guess.

Maybe read the article first? There's actually very specific ideas for how to actively reduce gun violence in meaningful ways.
Quote from: DoW on October 26, 2013, 09:06:17 PM
I'm drunk but that was epuc

Quote from: mehead on June 22, 2016, 11:52:42 PM
The Line still sucks. Hard.

Quote from: Gumbo72203 on July 25, 2017, 08:21:56 PM
well boys, we fucked up by not being there.

mbw

1. Gun License
2. Gun Registration
3. Liability Insurance

PIE-GUY

Responses in RED because I can't pull quotes out and shit right now.

Quote from: runawayjimbo on October 03, 2017, 05:27:26 PM
Quote from: PIE-GUY on October 03, 2017, 04:36:21 PM
Gun control measures aren't about solving the problems mentioned there. They are simply steps to limit guns and lessen their impact on society.

Hold on, gun control measures are not about solving the problem of unacceptable levels of gun violence? That's not what I've been told. my point is that it's not about "solving" but rather reducing the potential for gun violence.

Quote from: PIE-GUY on October 03, 2017, 04:36:21 PM
Every gun has to potential to kill. Some are designed to kill people first and foremost. It is my opinion that fewer of those guns should be sold than tomorrow than are sold today. Just as fewer people should buy cigarettes tomorrow than bought them today. In this way, we can turn the tide of gun deaths the other way.

That's a fine opinion to have and one on which you'll get no disagreement from me. But there is at least half of the country who has a differing opinion. So the question goes back to policy:  how can we enact measures that reduce the tragic number of gun deaths every year?

It's about potential energy. Yes. We can reduce the number of deaths if we enact gun control measures that make it harder to get a gun, harder to steal and use a gun (see fingerprint), harder to buy guns designed specifically to kill as many people as possible at one time, etc.

Quote from: PIE-GUY on October 03, 2017, 04:36:21 PM
Just as MADD was able to do with Drunk Driving. Just as the Surgeon General warnings have done with cigarettes. Just as seat belt laws have done with vehicle deaths. Just as the TSA has done to limit plane crashes. and on and on.

MADD probably not the best analogy as it is a private organization, not a gov't agency. Cigarettes/seat belts were effective because of they educated people to the dangers of the behaviors (MADD falls in here too). I think you meant FAA re air traffic, but that has been around pretty much since the beginning of commercial air travel; it's been advances in technology that has made it safer. Fuck the TSA.

MADD successfully lobbied state and federal governments to not only adopt stricter DWI laws but also to invest in enforcement. So, yes, MADD is exactly the analogy I want to use. Likewise, seatbelts. I don't know about anywhere else, but it TX they will ticket you for no belt... and nothing else. They can pull you over for that one violation alone. And FAA is kind of what I meant, but TSA, too. I know it's theater on some level, but we really don't have guys hijacking planes with big ass guns the way we did in the 70's. It's definitely better. And the FAA is no fucking joke.


Bottom line: We need GUN CONTROL LAWS NOW - LOTS OF THEM!!
I've been coming to where I am from the get go
Find that I can groove with the beat when I let go
So put your worries on hold
Get up and groove with the rhythm in your soul

mbw

"Gun reform"

Gun control is just a right wing propaganda term.

rowjimmy

Are you a law abiding citizen and wish to own a gun for hunting or personal protection, How about you submit to the most basic of regulations that we require for driving a fucking car?

Take a safety course and pass a test.
Register as a gun owner.
Register your gun.
Just as we don't license tanks to regular schmoes, no military grade weapons (sorry, semi-automatic weapons also. Bambi ain't shooting back) or ammo.
Inform that regulatory body when you transfer ownership of that gun.
Regularly renew that registration and maybe pass a fucking eye test.
Risk losing that registration as a result of lawbreaking.

And to all those afraid of registration because "the government is gonna come for my guns", if you don't break the law, why would they do that?
Besides you have your guns so you play it out to the cold-dead-hands thing if that's what turns you on.


My ideal is that we buy back the guns like they did in Australia alongside this registration program.
Reduce, regulate, and educate.

Buffalo Budd

Quote from: rowjimmy on October 04, 2017, 08:29:19 AM
Are you a law abiding citizen and wish to own a gun for hunting or personal protection, How about you submit to the most basic of regulations that we require for driving a fucking car?

Take a safety course and pass a test.
Register as a gun owner.
Register your gun.
Just as we don't license tanks to regular schmoes, no military grade weapons (sorry, semi-automatic weapons also. Bambi ain't shooting back) or ammo.
Inform that regulatory body when you transfer ownership of that gun.
Regularly renew that registration and maybe pass a fucking eye test.
Risk losing that registration as a result of lawbreaking.

And to all those afraid of registration because "the government is gonna come for my guns", if you don't break the law, why would they do that?
Besides you have your guns so you play it out to the cold-dead-hands thing if that's what turns you on.


My ideal is that we buy back the guns like they did in Australia alongside this registration program.
Reduce, regulate, and educate.

ie. common sense
Everything is connected, because it's all being created by this one consciousness. And we are tiny reflections of the mind that is creating the universe.

ytowndan

Quote from: Buffalo Budd on October 04, 2017, 08:55:20 AM
Quote from: rowjimmy on October 04, 2017, 08:29:19 AM
Are you a law abiding citizen and wish to own a gun for hunting or personal protection, How about you submit to the most basic of regulations that we require for driving a fucking car?

Take a safety course and pass a test.
Register as a gun owner.
Register your gun.
Just as we don't license tanks to regular schmoes, no military grade weapons (sorry, semi-automatic weapons also. Bambi ain't shooting back) or ammo.
Inform that regulatory body when you transfer ownership of that gun.
Regularly renew that registration and maybe pass a fucking eye test.
Risk losing that registration as a result of lawbreaking.

And to all those afraid of registration because "the government is gonna come for my guns", if you don't break the law, why would they do that?
Besides you have your guns so you play it out to the cold-dead-hands thing if that's what turns you on.


My ideal is that we buy back the guns like they did in Australia alongside this registration program.
Reduce, regulate, and educate.

ie. common sense

Yep. Sounds pretty sane to me. 
Quote from: nab on July 27, 2007, 12:20:24 AM
You never drink alone when you have something good to listen to.