America's Gun Violence

HughFreakingDillon said:

show previous quotes

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

jeffbr said:

CM189191 said:

PJPOWER said:

oftenreading said:

"Politically untenable" is a cop out that allows the citizens to collectively give up responsibility for who they elect. 

Um...no.  It is exactly the responsibility of the citizens and people they elect to help things.  Problem is that people do not agree with each other and the USA has a pretty unique foundation of laws compared to other countries...which guides policy and makes certain changes “politically untenable”.  A cop out is keeping saying “oh, but other countries do bla bla bla so the US should too”...also called a “pipe dream”.

democracy is hardly a unique foundation of laws
us democracy is like the model T
ford motor co may not have invented the car, but they figured out how to mass produce it
now other countries do it better than we do

No argument with your post, but often's was naive. "Politically untenable" is not a cop out. It is the political reality. This thread demonstrates that. Trump's presidency demonstrates that. This country has shown no appetite for addressing this issue, even in the face of massive loss of life, and that is the reality. I'd like to hear a politically tenable solution be proposed. Not a pipe dream, not hopeful or ideal solutions, but politically tenable ones. I haven't seen evidence that we're close yet.  That is our sad reality. 

it IS a cop out. polls show the vast majority of americans support meaningful change on this front. it's the politicians that are digging their heels in because of the gun lobby. 

Polls do not make it any more or less politically tenable.  You contradicted yourself in mentioning one more factors that makes some of the legislation suggested untenable.  Essentially, if some of these changes were politically or legally tenable, they would have already taken place.  Also to mention, I agree, most Americans probably do feel that meaningful change should take place, but the agreement on what kind of legislation should take place is lacking.  The democrats lean towards strict and republicans lean towards leniency.  If only the middle ground legislation were introduced into bills, there may be something tenable that comes out of it, but that’s not what happens.  The left wants broad strokes and therefore the right doesn’t budge...and vise versus with a thin strokes and the left saying “it’s not enough”.  Until the left and right agree, *most legislation is most definitely untenable...and I haven’t even touched on legality.

how did I contradict myself?

all the left wants is for automatic weapons (and any tool that can be used to modify a gun to be such) to be taken out of the hands of citizens. that's it. how is that "strict"?

I keep seeing people throwing that out, but the bills being introducing all go well beyond that.  Feinstein’s is a perfect example. 

tempo_n_groove said:

show previous quotes

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

tempo_n_groove said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

The numbnut in CA, by law, would have most likely not carried out the murdering spree had law enforcement been doing their jobs.  If certain current laws meant to prevent people like this from owning firearms are not even enforced, how are more laws going to help matters?  For laws to work, enforcement is necessary...same situation with the shitbubble in TX.  “Oh, but other countries bla bla bla”...The USA will not enforce similar legislation to Australia or Canada, it’s just not going to happen.  Maybe those types of regulations would make a difference, but they are politically and legally untenable...that is why people are trying to think outside of the box.  What else other than saying “but but other countries” can be done that IS legally and politically tenable?  
On the bright side (if there is one in the CA spree), at least the elementary school seemed to do a pretty good job responding to this threat.  The shitball was prevented from carrying out a massacre by diligence in the school staff.
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2017/11/15/rancho-tehama-shooting-2/

yes, he broke the law and slipped through the cracks. not all would. that is no excuse not to attempt it. 

australia's laws wouldn't apply to the US, but Canada's could. but again, gun laws aren't the sole issue here. apparently it's also largely due to a man and a woman getting married and the wife keeping her man happy. 

You going to keep harping on that?  I'm over it because that won't help the argument.

It was a comment that warrants at least a bit of harping.

If something is carelessly tosses out there in the hopes of promoting a viewpoint... people shouldn't be surprised when such utterings are challenged to the degree other people feel necessary.

I see it as an unnecessary tangent and deters from the real issue but it's an easy battle to pursue.

I see you never commented on the piece I offered you regarding your suggestion that it is easier- or more appropriate- to dissect the mindset that leads to mass murder versus removing the tools of the trade.

Instead... you spend your energies basically saying, "C'mon gang. Yah. That comment never worked, but we're at least trying. So let that go. And the rest too. Until we finally get one that kinda works better okay?"

Sorry, I don't recall it.  I left this thread for a bit.  Re send it and I'll take a look.

And I have no idea what this means as you seem to want to put words in my mouth that I would never say and make me sound like an ignorant hick...

It means you keep insisting to let the comment a vocal gun proponent thrust forward in defence of gun ownership... instead of allowing that comment to face its due response.

The gun advocacy side is reaching at best. These 'reaches' need to face their due criticism lest some fool actually start to believe that nonsense. And if you think that's a stretch... your country voted for a confirmed lying, sex offender that ran on 'Let's Make America great Again' because many thought he'd make America great again.

HughFreakingDillon said:

show previous quotes

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

jeffbr said:

CM189191 said:

PJPOWER said:

oftenreading said:

"Politically untenable" is a cop out that allows the citizens to collectively give up responsibility for who they elect. 

Um...no.  It is exactly the responsibility of the citizens and people they elect to help things.  Problem is that people do not agree with each other and the USA has a pretty unique foundation of laws compared to other countries...which guides policy and makes certain changes “politically untenable”.  A cop out is keeping saying “oh, but other countries do bla bla bla so the US should too”...also called a “pipe dream”.

democracy is hardly a unique foundation of laws
us democracy is like the model T
ford motor co may not have invented the car, but they figured out how to mass produce it
now other countries do it better than we do

No argument with your post, but often's was naive. "Politically untenable" is not a cop out. It is the political reality. This thread demonstrates that. Trump's presidency demonstrates that. This country has shown no appetite for addressing this issue, even in the face of massive loss of life, and that is the reality. I'd like to hear a politically tenable solution be proposed. Not a pipe dream, not hopeful or ideal solutions, but politically tenable ones. I haven't seen evidence that we're close yet.  That is our sad reality. 

it IS a cop out. polls show the vast majority of americans support meaningful change on this front. it's the politicians that are digging their heels in because of the gun lobby. 

Polls do not make it any more or less politically tenable.  You contradicted yourself in mentioning one more factors that makes some of the legislation suggested untenable.  Essentially, if some of these changes were politically or legally tenable, they would have already taken place.  Also to mention, I agree, most Americans probably do feel that meaningful change should take place, but the agreement on what kind of legislation should take place is lacking.  The democrats lean towards strict and republicans lean towards leniency.  If only the middle ground legislation were introduced into bills, there may be something tenable that comes out of it, but that’s not what happens.  The left wants broad strokes and therefore the right doesn’t budge...and vise versus with a thin strokes and the left saying “it’s not enough”.  Until the left and right agree, *most legislation is most definitely untenable...and I haven’t even touched on legality.

how did I contradict myself?

all the left wants is for automatic weapons (and any tool that can be used to modify a gun to be such) to be taken out of the hands of citizens. that's it. how is that "strict"?

I keep seeing people throwing that out, but the bills being introducing all go well beyond that.  Feinstein’s is a perfect example. 

all I know about her bill was the banning of bump stocks. what "went well beyond that"?

edit:, k, I found point by point what it said. not sure what's "beyond" about this. basically anything already purchased is grandfathered in. 

https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons-ban-summary

That bill bans wayyyyyyy more than bumpstocks.  Also anything you own isn't really grandfathered in.  It states that if you do own it you can't sell it, give it away, heirloom it.  You die, your gun gets destroyed.

The bill also wants any and all guns that remotely represent an assault rifle banned.  

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

show previous quotes

tempo_n_groove said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

tempo_n_groove said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

The numbnut in CA, by law, would have most likely not carried out the murdering spree had law enforcement been doing their jobs.  If certain current laws meant to prevent people like this from owning firearms are not even enforced, how are more laws going to help matters?  For laws to work, enforcement is necessary...same situation with the shitbubble in TX.  “Oh, but other countries bla bla bla”...The USA will not enforce similar legislation to Australia or Canada, it’s just not going to happen.  Maybe those types of regulations would make a difference, but they are politically and legally untenable...that is why people are trying to think outside of the box.  What else other than saying “but but other countries” can be done that IS legally and politically tenable?  
On the bright side (if there is one in the CA spree), at least the elementary school seemed to do a pretty good job responding to this threat.  The shitball was prevented from carrying out a massacre by diligence in the school staff.
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2017/11/15/rancho-tehama-shooting-2/

yes, he broke the law and slipped through the cracks. not all would. that is no excuse not to attempt it. 

australia's laws wouldn't apply to the US, but Canada's could. but again, gun laws aren't the sole issue here. apparently it's also largely due to a man and a woman getting married and the wife keeping her man happy. 

You going to keep harping on that?  I'm over it because that won't help the argument.

It was a comment that warrants at least a bit of harping.

If something is carelessly tosses out there in the hopes of promoting a viewpoint... people shouldn't be surprised when such utterings are challenged to the degree other people feel necessary.

I see it as an unnecessary tangent and deters from the real issue but it's an easy battle to pursue.

I see you never commented on the piece I offered you regarding your suggestion that it is easier- or more appropriate- to dissect the mindset that leads to mass murder versus removing the tools of the trade.

Instead... you spend your energies basically saying, "C'mon gang. Yah. That comment never worked, but we're at least trying. So let that go. And the rest too. Until we finally get one that kinda works better okay?"

Sorry, I don't recall it.  I left this thread for a bit.  Re send it and I'll take a look.

And I have no idea what this means as you seem to want to put words in my mouth that I would never say and make me sound like an ignorant hick...

It means you keep insisting to let the comment a vocal gun proponent thrust forward in defence of gun ownership... instead of allowing that comment to face its due response.

The gun advocacy side is reaching at best. These 'reaches' need to face their due criticism lest some fool actually start to believe that nonsense. And if you think that's a stretch... your country voted for a confirmed lying, sex offender that ran on 'Let's Make America great Again' because many thought he'd make America great again.

Now you sound like you're trying to speak like a Rhodes scholar...

I brought up something, a question, that I thought of myself.  Apparently there is someone from the pro gun advocacy group(s) that proposed the same question?

It just sounds like you are trying to be smart and belittling about a comment that I made that I have already moved on about...

After Newtown we got the following:

In the immediate aftermath of Newtown, on December 20, 2012, President Barack Obama established a Task Force on Gun Violence under the leadership of Vice President Joseph R. Biden. On January 16, 2013, the White House released a document entitled: Now Is the Time: The President’s Plan to Protect our Children and Our Communities by Reducing Gun Violence. 6 This plan included 18 legislative proposals and 23 executive actions.7 Several of those legislative proposals included the following: • require background checks for private firearms transfers at gun shows and any other venue, or “universal background checks”; • strengthen and reinstate a ban of semiautomatic assault weapons and magazines of over 10 rounds (cartridges); • increase penalties for gun trafficking; • reexamine and strengthen restrictions on armor piercing ammunition; • Senate confirmation of Minnesota U.S. Attorney B. Todd Jones as Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF);8 and • repeal an ATF appropriations rider and strengthen that agency’s authority to deny importation permits for 50-year-old military surplus firearms that fall under the regulatory definition of “curio or relic.”9 Other legislative proposals primarily consisted of requests for additional funding to • maintain 15,000 police officers on the streets of the United States, otherwise known as the COPS (Community Oriented Policing Services) program10 ($4 billion); • train state, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement officers in responding to shootings ($14 million); • allow the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) to conduct additional research on the possible nexus between video games, media images, and violence ($10 million); • expand the National Violent Death Reporting System (NVDRS)11 from 18 to all 50 states; • improve incentives to encourage states to provide the FBI with prohibiting records on individuals who fall under the definition of “mental defective” ($50 million); and • improve school security ($230 million). The Administration’s 23 executive actions, under the plan, range from directing the Attorney General to work with U.S. Attorneys to ensure that firearms-related criminal cases are prosecuted to directing the CDC to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.12 The Administration periodically updated a report chronicling its progress in implementing these executive actions.13 This report does not focus on the President’s plan in its entirety. Rather, this report provides an overview of federal firearms laws as a basis for examining the three most salient legislative proposals included in the President’s plan. Those proposals would have (1) required background checks for intrastate firearms transfers between unlicensed persons at gun shows and nearly any other venue, otherwise known as the “universal background checks” proposal; (2) increased penalties for gun trafficking; and (3) reinstated and strengthened an expired federal ban on detachable ammunition magazines of over 10-round capacity and certain “military style” firearms commonly described as “semiautomatic assault weapons,” which are designed to accept such magazines. This report also briefly examines counter-proposals designed to increase both open and concealed firearms carrying privileges under certain circumstances.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42987.pdf

Its all with extensive footnotes (I didn't copy because I was afraid it'd be too long)and is well researched with data. Now, please tell me where it "goes too far" or is politically untenable. Remember, Obama was president and Mitch McConnell openly stated that, "his party's number one goal was to see thjs president fail." Since Newtown, how many people have been killed in mass shootings? Please be specific when responding and spare me the fables, parables and homilies about your personal experiences, upbringing or other deflections from fact based debate.

HughFreakingDillon said:

show previous quotes

tempo_n_groove said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

jeffbr said:

CM189191 said:

PJPOWER said:

oftenreading said:

"Politically untenable" is a cop out that allows the citizens to collectively give up responsibility for who they elect. 

Um...no.  It is exactly the responsibility of the citizens and people they elect to help things.  Problem is that people do not agree with each other and the USA has a pretty unique foundation of laws compared to other countries...which guides policy and makes certain changes “politically untenable”.  A cop out is keeping saying “oh, but other countries do bla bla bla so the US should too”...also called a “pipe dream”.

democracy is hardly a unique foundation of laws
us democracy is like the model T
ford motor co may not have invented the car, but they figured out how to mass produce it
now other countries do it better than we do

No argument with your post, but often's was naive. "Politically untenable" is not a cop out. It is the political reality. This thread demonstrates that. Trump's presidency demonstrates that. This country has shown no appetite for addressing this issue, even in the face of massive loss of life, and that is the reality. I'd like to hear a politically tenable solution be proposed. Not a pipe dream, not hopeful or ideal solutions, but politically tenable ones. I haven't seen evidence that we're close yet.  That is our sad reality. 

it IS a cop out. polls show the vast majority of americans support meaningful change on this front. it's the politicians that are digging their heels in because of the gun lobby. 

Polls do not make it any more or less politically tenable.  You contradicted yourself in mentioning one more factors that makes some of the legislation suggested untenable.  Essentially, if some of these changes were politically or legally tenable, they would have already taken place.  Also to mention, I agree, most Americans probably do feel that meaningful change should take place, but the agreement on what kind of legislation should take place is lacking.  The democrats lean towards strict and republicans lean towards leniency.  If only the middle ground legislation were introduced into bills, there may be something tenable that comes out of it, but that’s not what happens.  The left wants broad strokes and therefore the right doesn’t budge...and vise versus with a thin strokes and the left saying “it’s not enough”.  Until the left and right agree, *most legislation is most definitely untenable...and I haven’t even touched on legality.

how did I contradict myself?

all the left wants is for automatic weapons (and any tool that can be used to modify a gun to be such) to be taken out of the hands of citizens. that's it. how is that "strict"?

I keep seeing people throwing that out, but the bills being introducing all go well beyond that.  Feinstein’s is a perfect example. 

all I know about her bill was the banning of bump stocks. what "went well beyond that"?

edit:, k, I found point by point what it said. not sure what's "beyond" about this. basically anything already purchased is grandfathered in. 

https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons-ban-summary

That bill bans wayyyyyyy more than bumpstocks.  Also anything you own isn't really grandfathered in.  It states that if you do own it you can't sell it, give it away, heirloom it.  You die, your gun gets destroyed.

The bill also wants any and all guns that remotely represent an assault rifle banned.  

yes, anything that is or can be modified to be an "assault" rifle. how is that unreasonable?

yes, that's the whole point. if you allow people to sell it or heirloom it, the guns stay in the system. that's not what needs to occur. 

same thing goes in Canada. My buddy's dad died, he reported his assets, there was a rifle that was hanging on their cottage wall above fire place for decades. they confiscated and destroyed it. it was special to him, but he understands their reasoning. 

americans don't seem to. 

If I bought a gun for $1000 and was told that I couldn't sell it or get back something from what I paid for it I'd be pissed, so yeah I don't see it as being a good thing.

Also You aren't modifying anything, now maybe that's just semantics with describing something so I can let that slide.  

The bill bans EVRYTHING but a shotgun or a bolt action.

I wouldn't stand behind that bill at all.

Sorry.

HughFreakingDillon said:

show previous quotes

mcgruff10 said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

tempo_n_groove said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJPOWER said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

jeffbr said:

CM189191 said:

PJPOWER said:

oftenreading said:

"Politically untenable" is a cop out that allows the citizens to collectively give up responsibility for who they elect. 

Um...no.  It is exactly the responsibility of the citizens and people they elect to help things.  Problem is that people do not agree with each other and the USA has a pretty unique foundation of laws compared to other countries...which guides policy and makes certain changes “politically untenable”.  A cop out is keeping saying “oh, but other countries do bla bla bla so the US should too”...also called a “pipe dream”.

democracy is hardly a unique foundation of laws
us democracy is like the model T
ford motor co may not have invented the car, but they figured out how to mass produce it
now other countries do it better than we do

No argument with your post, but often's was naive. "Politically untenable" is not a cop out. It is the political reality. This thread demonstrates that. Trump's presidency demonstrates that. This country has shown no appetite for addressing this issue, even in the face of massive loss of life, and that is the reality. I'd like to hear a politically tenable solution be proposed. Not a pipe dream, not hopeful or ideal solutions, but politically tenable ones. I haven't seen evidence that we're close yet.  That is our sad reality. 

it IS a cop out. polls show the vast majority of americans support meaningful change on this front. it's the politicians that are digging their heels in because of the gun lobby. 

Polls do not make it any more or less politically tenable.  You contradicted yourself in mentioning one more factors that makes some of the legislation suggested untenable.  Essentially, if some of these changes were politically or legally tenable, they would have already taken place.  Also to mention, I agree, most Americans probably do feel that meaningful change should take place, but the agreement on what kind of legislation should take place is lacking.  The democrats lean towards strict and republicans lean towards leniency.  If only the middle ground legislation were introduced into bills, there may be something tenable that comes out of it, but that’s not what happens.  The left wants broad strokes and therefore the right doesn’t budge...and vise versus with a thin strokes and the left saying “it’s not enough”.  Until the left and right agree, *most legislation is most definitely untenable...and I haven’t even touched on legality.

how did I contradict myself?

all the left wants is for automatic weapons (and any tool that can be used to modify a gun to be such) to be taken out of the hands of citizens. that's it. how is that "strict"?

I keep seeing people throwing that out, but the bills being introducing all go well beyond that.  Feinstein’s is a perfect example. 

all I know about her bill was the banning of bump stocks. what "went well beyond that"?

edit:, k, I found point by point what it said. not sure what's "beyond" about this. basically anything already purchased is grandfathered in. 

https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons-ban-summary

That bill bans wayyyyyyy more than bumpstocks.  Also anything you own isn't really grandfathered in.  It states that if you do own it you can't sell it, give it away, heirloom it.  You die, your gun gets destroyed.

The bill also wants any and all guns that remotely represent an assault rifle banned.  

yes, anything that is or can be modified to be an "assault" rifle. how is that unreasonable?

yes, that's the whole point. if you allow people to sell it or heirloom it, the guns stay in the system. that's not what needs to occur. 

same thing goes in Canada. My buddy's dad died, he reported his assets, there was a rifle that was hanging on their cottage wall above fire place for decades. they confiscated and destroyed it. it was special to him, but he understands their reasoning. 

americans don't seem to. 

It is a different way of thinking in the us. Whether you agree with it or not we have the second amendment built into the bill of rights while you guys don't. It has been entrenched in our minds for over two hundred years. 

that, in my eyes, is nothing more than an excuse. if it wasn't for the second amendment, I'd take a guess that americans would know about as much about their constitution as canadians know about theirs. which is basically nearly zero. 

it is a piece of paper written by men over 2 hundred years ago, AMENDED BY MEN. it can be amended again. it was written in a time by people who would have zero concept as to its practical application in the future. it's so odd to me that people think the constitution is written in stone. it's not the 10 commandments. the second amendment is an AMENDMENT. it can be amended again. it's a living document. and beyond that, nowhere does it say anything about owning any gun ever invented. right to bear arms. that's it. no one has taken away your right to own a gun. it's the type of gun people are freaking out over, or the slippery slope argument, which is nothing more than a red herring. 

the rest of the world shakes their heads while all yours are getting blown off.