Vegas

[UNTFan23]

6 hours ago, SCREAMING EAGLE-66 said:

So you want  control of drugs .. but not assault guns...  You claim control doesn't stop or make the situation more difficult for either group. So why bother if control doesn't help at all. --- Your picture seems to indicate you are no fan of guns  (suicide shown ) ..confusing. 

I really love the whole "Why have rules if rules don't work" argument. All I have tried to say is even with rules/laws, there will be those that break those rules/laws. People will not follow those rules/laws either out of ignorance or freedom of choice.

We could make bump stocks illegal but there are still other ways to make semi-automatic rifles like an AR style gun simulate full auto. Even if we straight out banned AR style rifles, those style of guns only account for a small percentage of all gun related shootings. It will likely help prevent some mass-shootings in the future but not all.

[EagleMBA]

The latest weapon of choice, here and in Europe, appears to be a hijacked or rented box truck. I demand that legislation be passed forcing all rental companies to run background checks on all persons who wish to rent a box truck. Perhaps a waiting period should be imposed.

Sick people/criminal people are gonna do what they feel like doing, at the expense of law-abiding people. Don't take away the rights of law-abiding people...look for sick people and criminals.

[TheTastyGreek]

3 hours ago, EagleMBA said:

The latest weapon of choice, here and in Europe, appears to be a hijacked or rented box truck. I demand that legislation be passed forcing all rental companies to run background checks on all persons who wish to rent a box truck. Perhaps a waiting period should be imposed.

Sick people/criminal people are gonna do what they feel like doing, at the expense of law-abiding people. Don't take away the rights of law-abiding people...look for sick people and criminals.

Don't they require a driver's license and proof of insurance to rent a truck? And don't you need a lot of test-passing, background-evaluating to get those two things?

The appropriate thing to do when a maniac drives into a crowd of people isn't to make jokes about truck control. It's to condemn all of the violence on both sides. ON BOTH SIDES. 

[TreeFiddy]

Can't we just settle things peacefully like most religious debates have been settled throughout history?

[Rudy]

Once again, 66, what's a clip, and what is an "assault gun" ?

And comparing drug laws to gun laws is a flawed argument. Drugs are not a constitutional right, and passing drug laws do not risk infringing upon our rights as a citizen. When your pass gun laws, their effect on the constitution must be considered.

[UNTFan23]

1 hour ago, TheTastyGreek said:

Don't they require a driver's license and proof of insurance to rent a truck? And don't you need a lot of test-passing, background-evaluating to get those two things?

The appropriate thing to do when a maniac drives into a crowd of people isn't to make jokes about truck control. It's to condemn all of the violence on both sides. ON BOTH SIDES. 

Obviously there is one side/person that committed the violence, so what is the other side? The West?

[TheTastyGreek]

8 hours ago, UNTFan23 said:

Obviously there is one side/person that committed the violence, so what is the other side? The West?

This would be a reference to both the sitting president and our esteemed GMG political council's reaction to Charlottesville. 

9 hours ago, TreeFiddy said:

Can't we just settle things peacefully like most religious debates have been settled throughout history?

This guy gets it. 

Really, I think this is just a breakdown of compromise.

[LongJim]

Go ahead and ban bump stocks.  I'm all for it.  It will be ineffective and won't matter. 

Where was security at the hotel?  How does a guy sneak that much firepower upstairs in a city with probably the most video surveillance in the world?  Why was the concert essentially in a kill zone?

The problem with this type of knee-jerk response is that the cat is already out of the bag.  The gate is open and the cattle ain't coming back.

Root cause.  Until that's dealt with, this type of thing will continue until the end of time.

 

[Mean Green 93-98]

On 10/30/2017 at 2:53 PM, SCREAMING EAGLE-66 said:

UNTFan23  -- Sounds like you want heroin, cocaine, meth,  opium, and other drugs legalized....  making them illegal just makes getting them more difficult ... but doesn't stop use.... same argument you are using. ... . 

I repeat , I am not anti-gun.. (own them that own rural land) but see no real purpose in making assault -type guns and huge clips available..  They are not good hunting guns and unless you are very unusual (like a drug dealer) the normal person doesn't need them for self defense.. other guns are better... They are often used  in mass murders. 

Guns--"assault-type" and otherwise--are in the vast majority of instances used for healthy, constructive purposes.  I think it would be difficult to say the same for heroin, cocaine, or meth.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

----Was Vegas constructive, or the Conn. school, or the nightclub in Florida, or all those other terrorist attacks by crazies ....None of those would been as severe had "normal" guns been used. .....  List some of those you know of when assault guns  were used for healthy, and  constructive activities .... You said it ..... I didn't. ... ..... I am not suggesting those drugs are good .... you just claimed outlawing things doesn't matter ... people will get them anyway so why outlaw them..... 

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

 

https://www.yahoo.com/gma/more-dozen-people-shot-texas-church-193004387--abc-news-topstories.html

26 dead....... Ar-15 type gun  .. or  assault gun.. The suspect’s Facebook profile appeared to show a recent picture of an AR-15–style gun.

 

Not one of the  healthy, constructive activities you mentioned. 

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

Most have occurred since 1998 ..... and involved assault guns. 

 

Edited November 6, 2017 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[Mean Green 93-98]

20 hours ago, SCREAMING EAGLE-66 said:

----Was Vegas constructive, or the Conn. school, or the nightclub in Florida, or all those other terrorist attacks by crazies ....

No.  Thus why I said "vast majority."  Most people who buy AR's, etc. are not using them for mass shootings of innocent people.

 

20 hours ago, SCREAMING EAGLE-66 said:

List some of those you know of when assault guns  were used for healthy, and  constructive activities .... You said it ..... I didn't. ...

To be honest, those kinds of guns aren't my personal style.  I like simplicity.  I'll take a longbow over a compound bow.  But others I know--some of the gentlest, kindest people you'll meet--like an AR for hunting, self-protection, target shooting, bonding with sons and grandsons, etc.  I don't know the figures, but I'm sure that 10's of thousands of AR's have sold in the U.S., and far more of them have been used for these constructive purposes than the 8 or 9 times they have been used to target random innocent civilians.

 

20 hours ago, SCREAMING EAGLE-66 said:

you just claimed outlawing things doesn't matter ...  

I did?  When?

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

On 10/31/2017 at 5:03 PM, UNTFan23 said:

I really love the whole "Why have rules if rules don't work" argument. All I have tried to say is even with rules/laws, there will be those that break those rules/laws. People will not follow those rules/laws either out of ignorance or freedom of choice.

We could make bump stocks illegal but there are still other ways to make semi-automatic rifles like an AR style gun simulate full auto. Even if we straight out banned AR style rifles, those style of guns only account for a small percentage of all gun related shootings. It will likely help prevent some mass-shootings in the future but not all.

---That sounds like you think banning or putting controls on guns would  not make ANY real  difference..... Almost all MASS shootings in the past 25 years have involved AR style rifles.... no it will not stop shootings between two angry people or during most robberies...  but banning or controlling them would be helpful in reducing mass shooting.  .... I am guessing you are not as rural or semi-rural ( live in town but owns ranchland, I am ). We do not look on guns as toys but more like tools or objects needed to kill snakes, hogs, or other varmints.  No sense in making things easy for people who often have mental problems, religious nuts,  or extreme anger at the world.  As I have said ... I am not anti-gun and have owned them forever..... not assault types. They make lousy hunting guns and don't knock down larger animals, often just wounding them. Too small of  a caliber.... note how many at the church were wounded. .  

.The NRA and a group of political candidates kept claiming the Obama and the Democrats were coming after your guns... It did NOT happen and no effort was made either .... They are not honest making that claim. ..... they just want to sell guns and get votes. Don't be gullible. 

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

Another one ... just four  this time .. assault rifle ... again.. . 

http://www.bigcountryhomepage.com/news/main-news/child-3-adults-shot-in-texas-i-35-shooting-spree/852142605?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook_KTAB_News

 

Edited November 6, 2017 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[GangGreen]

On 10/30/2017 at 4:22 PM, UNTFan23 said:

No, I've never said anything close to that. I'm merely attempting to say that while laws are great, people still break them and sometimes, laws with good intentions inflict bad and unforeseen consequences on the wrong group of people. Just because drugs are illegal does not make them harder to get. People get caught with illegal drugs all the time. Just watch an episode of LivePD and you'll see how many interactions with the police departments to show follows involve drugs in some form or fashion.

The black market for marijuana is actually booming in Colorado since it was legalized.

Government regulations and taxes encourage this. Not saying that it is the same thing by any means, just saying.

[FirefightnRick]

On 11/6/2017 at 8:38 AM, SCREAMING EAGLE-66 said:

---That sounds like you think banning or putting controls on guns would  not make ANY real  difference..... Almost all MASS shootings in the past 25 years have involved AR style rifles.... no it will not stop shootings between two angry people or during most robberies...  but banning or controlling them would be helpful in reducing mass shooting.  .... I am guessing you are not as rural or semi-rural ( live in town but owns ranchland, I am ). We do not look on guns as toys but more like tools or objects needed to kill snakes, hogs, or other varmints.  No sense in making things easy for people who often have mental problems, religious nuts,  or extreme anger at the world.  As I have said ... I am not anti-gun and have owned them forever..... not assault types. They make lousy hunting guns and don't knock down larger animals, often just wounding them. Too small of  a caliber.... note how many at the church were wounded. .  

.The NRA and a group of political candidates kept claiming the Obama and the Democrats were coming after your guns... It did NOT happen and no effort was made either .... They are not honest making that claim. ..... they just want to sell guns and get votes. Don't be gullible. 

It seems like every 3 to 5 years I have to come here and correct you on your whacked out agenda against rifles. 

To start, according to the CDC a mass shooting involves 4 or more victims. The city of Chicago has had 30 of these to date. THIRTY MASS SHOOTINGS and not a word from you about it.  Why?  Because you know damn good and well very few if any involve rifles....in a place that it's illegal to carry a gun of any kind unless your in law inforcement or a special cert.

With that said, according to 2014 info at fbi.gov you couldn't be MORE wrong about homicide numbers involving rifles.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/expanded-homicide-data/expanded_homicide_data_table_8_murder_victims_by_weapon_2010-2014.xls

In fact....your so wrong in your agenda  that it's near laughable to point out that more people are killed by hammers and blunt objects(435) and even by hand(660)...than are killed by rifles(248). 

 

 

Rick

Edited November 7, 2017 by FirefightnRick

[Censored by Laurie]

fun with real numbers

The United States is one of only three countries, along with Mexico and Guatemala, that begin with the opposite assumption: that people have an inherent right to own guns.

The main reason American regulation of gun ownership is so weak may be the fact that the trade-offs are simply given a different weight in the United States than they are anywhere else.

After Britain had a mass shooting in 1987, the country instituted strict gun control laws. So did Australia after a 1996 incident. But the United States has repeatedly faced the same calculus and determined that relatively unregulated gun ownership is worth the cost to society.

That choice, more than any statistic or regulation, is what most sets the United States apart.

“In retrospect Sandy Hook marked the end of the US gun control debate,” Dan Hodges, a British journalist, wrote in a post on Twitter two years ago, referring to the 2012 attack that killed 20 young students at an elementary school in Connecticut. “Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over.”

[MeanGreenTexan]

On 11/1/2017 at 8:57 AM, TheTastyGreek said:

This would be a reference to both the sitting president and our esteemed GMG political council's reaction to Charlottesville. 

This guy gets it. 

Really, I think this is just a breakdown of compromise.

I think you might be misspelling ‘compamize’.  The thing Emmitt Smith never does.  Otherwise, that’s a some kind of ancient word we don’t use anymore like ‘knickerbocker’.

[FirefightnRick]

6 hours ago, Censored by Laurie said:

fun with real numbers

The United States is one of only three countries, along with Mexico and Guatemala, that begin with the opposite assumption: that people have an inherent right to own guns.

The main reason American regulation of gun ownership is so weak may be the fact that the trade-offs are simply given a different weight in the United States than they are anywhere else.

After Britain had a mass shooting in 1987, the country instituted strict gun control laws. So did Australia after a 1996 incident. But the United States has repeatedly faced the same calculus and determined that relatively unregulated gun ownership is worth the cost to society.

That choice, more than any statistic or regulation, is what most sets the United States apart.

“In retrospect Sandy Hook marked the end of the US gun control debate,” Dan Hodges, a British journalist, wrote in a post on Twitter two years ago, referring to the 2012 attack that killed 20 young students at an elementary school in Connecticut. “Once America decided killing children was bearable, it was over.”

 

"Rather, they found, in data that has since been 

repeatedly confirmed, that American crime is simply more lethal. A New Yorker is just as likely to be robbed as a Londoner, for instance, but the New Yorker is 54 times more likely to be killed in the process.

They concluded that the discrepancy, like so many other anomalies of American violence, came down to guns.

More gun ownership corresponds with more gun murders across virtually every axis:....."

But NY is a gun free city, right?

A more interesting question is... if a New Yorker is 54% more  likely to die while being robbed than a Londoner, then what's the % the robber in NY will die over the robber in London?  

 

Rick

Edited November 8, 2017 by FirefightnRick

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

FFR --- Most  of those Chicago murders are gang murders..... (read the facts) .. . not shootings of totally innocent victims... such as happened in Vegas and recently.. Totally different. . 

Comparing robberies to murders or gun violence seems meaningless.. unless the victim is shot...  However you are pointing out that carrying a gun doesn't prevent them.... in fact maybe make them more lethal.   Can't carry them them in London... and not a lot of gun ownership. -- Ever been there?.. I have .....  a lot of times.  You might get mugged there as in NY or some large city here ... but not likely to be shot and killed.  ------ even so that comment has noting to do with having an assault weapon which is ALL I am talking about .... not guns in general.  You are way off the subject. 

Edited November 8, 2017 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[LongJim]

That cartoon graphic is so intentionally inflammatory, intellectually lazy, and smug that I feel embarrassed to even comment on it.

[FirefightnRick]

1 hour ago, SCREAMING EAGLE-66 said:

FFR --- Most  of those Chicago murders are gang murders..... (read the facts) .. . not shootings of totally innocent victims... such as happened in Vegas and recently.. Totally different. . 

Comparing robberies to murders or gun violence seems meaningless.. unless the victim is shot...  However you are pointing out that carrying a gun doesn't prevent them.... in fact maybe make them more lethal.   Can't carry them them in London... and not a lot of gun ownership. -- Ever been there?.. I have .....  a lot of times.  You might get mugged there as in NY or some large city here ... but not likely to be shot and killed.  ------ even so that comment has noting to do with having an assault weapon which is ALL I am talking about .... not guns in general.  You are way off the subject. 

Nice try at trying to chang the subject.  

If "totally innocent victims" were the only concern in this debate you would never go on and on and on, year after year about west Texas, rural this and that uses of rifles and hunting and what you think they should be used for..and not used for.

And last I checked...someone who is killed during a robbery is a murder victim and many times is a "totally innocent victim"

And btw...you are aware aren't you,......that Kelly was stopped by an AR rifle used by a (gasp) NRA member and a (double gasp) ex-NRA instructor, right?  So I s Kelly considered as part of your "totally innocent victim" left-turn parameter?

The facts are rifles pose less,  MUCH less a danger than you have tried to claim.  That is the subject I'm addressing and I n fact UNTfan23 even pointed that out to you above.

He's right.  

 

Rick

Edited November 8, 2017 by FirefightnRick

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

---People are mugged and robbed by assault weapons.... REALLY ......???   Pretty rare. .. You are the one changing the subject...  Quit trying to claim I am anti-gun.. I am not ... Just against assault guns   ..... You seem to be twisting the truth as 90 always did. 

---Granted I  don't see the need to carry a gun everywhere.... and I don't want my students to have one in my classroom*** ... Even the military doesn't allow soldiers to carry one around on a military base without a justified  reason [ MPs,  training etc. ] but you think it is ok on a college campus...??.  that seems a bit odd... do firemen carry guns on their person everywhere and have an assault weapon nearby to them..??? .. If not .. why not..??.  Are you allowed to do so.??  some arsonist/nut may not want you to put it out or rescue someone from a wreak. .

. *** seem too many careless people and the need is extremely rare. --more would die by accidental shootings than now happens by some nut... [ No problem with one locked in a car. ] 

---------------------

Know of any in a Texas college classroom shot by someone in the past ten years... yes it is possible ... also possible in a church too...  PLUS 100's thousands attend college classes every year....  I wonder how many have been shot by accidental discharges there have been in Texas .. I can name a bunch.  Only one e person  has been shot at UT since Whitman (1967?) and it was lately and was not even close to a classroom building or dorm and did not involve a student doing the shooting. Their enrollment is over 60,000 .. can any city over 60,000 say that.?? 

Edited November 8, 2017 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[Censored by Laurie]

27 minutes ago, LongJim said:

That cartoon graphic is so intentionally inflammatory, intellectually lazy, and smug that I feel embarrassed to even comment on it.

oh totally.

I'd much rather engage in a conversation about the history of Western military, political, economic and religious interference and exploitation in the Middle East...or the complex societal issues and mechanisms that continue to plague many black/minority/poor communities across the nation...and how both have led to decades and generations of anger and frustration and poverty...and thusly, violence, often directed against real and/or perceived discriminatory elements of control and power. 

thoughts?