Jump to content

So Very Sad....


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, BobSaccamanno said:

Your move seems to be to parse what people say to make false claims of misinformation.  I made it very clear that I do not think you’re making a responsible choice by advocating for acceptance of semi and automatic weapons.  Not when there is a risk of innocent people being slaughtered due to nothing they did except be born into a society that allows instruments of warfare to be in the hands of regular folks when our Constitution expressly recognizes the seriousness of even the weaponry of their time by requiring them to be “well regulated.”

You can hunt without a semi automatic weapon.  It may be more fitting of “sport” that way, anyway.  

You stated the AR15 is a rapid fire weapon, and that is false. That is misinformation.  I have not parsed what you said, I quoted you.  I also never mentioned hunting.  I do hunt, and I do have an AR, but I don't use it for hunting.  I shoot it on the range, because I enjoy shooting it.  However, it is your last statement that gives most gun owners pause,  because you have made the very short step from the AR to ALL semi-automatics. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 515
  • Created
  • Last Reply
13 minutes ago, Muddy River said:

You stated the AR15 is a rapid fire weapon, and that is false. That is misinformation.  I have not parsed what you said, I quoted you.  I also never mentioned hunting.  I do hunt, and I do have an AR, but I don't use it for hunting.  I shoot it on the range, because I enjoy shooting it.  However, it is your last statement that gives most gun owners pause,  because you have made the very short step from the AR to ALL semi-automatics. 

What do you think we should do to protect our children?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, rico said:

Now I would concur with that as a "gun guy".  I mentioned above that me and Dad have them for groundhogs.  But we don't view them as game....we view them as a pest that destroy our crops.  We don't "hunt" coyotes although some people would view them as a pest.  

This is a good point.  There are bona fide uses for guns.  Maybe we can have better and specific licensure and proper showing for such uses.  

Whether we want to define it as rapid fire or not, an AR-15 style allows for a couple dozen rounds and can be bumped up to automatic.  I don’t want Biff, the corner disaffected loser getting his hands on one.  AR-15, like Kleenex, is a genericized term that originally referred to a particular product but now carries the meaning of the style regardless of manufacturer.  

I am not anti-gun per se by any stretch.  I’m also not saying guns are the only cause. But, our gun laws are a factor in our insanely high murder rate.  Since they have the potential to do irreparable damage, I think enhancing requirements and regulations makes good sense, and is supported by the constitution which refers to well-regulated.  

I am not a psychiatrist, but jumping on mental illness as the reason seems like a cop out.  Psychiatrists say the vast majority of killings are not by the mentally ill.  You can be filled with rage and just want to kill people.  Sure, we can improve mental illness treatment.  We can enhance registries of gun owners and law enforcement data aggregation and procedure.  But, allowing certain types of guns should be on the table too.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, KoB2011 said:

What do you think we should do to protect our children?

I certainly do not think I have all the answers, and I also don't think there is any one right answer.  This is a multi faceted problem, but these are some things that I think should garner some attention:

There are processes already in place to keep people like the Florida shooter from getting a gun.  As I understand it, the police were called to this kid's home something like 29 times, and others reported him to the FBI.  How does that not show on his background check when he went to purchase the gun?  What part of the system in place, failed?  Let's look at that and fix the problem so that doesn't happen again.

As I  pointed out earlier, in 2010, the ATF referred over 4700 cases for prosecution where people tried to get a gun illegally.  44 of those cases were prosecuted and 13 people were punished.  Why are we not enforcing the laws that are in place?  Why are prosecutors not picking up these cases?  Why are so many going unpunished?  We need to prosecute all gun crimes with vigor.  We have laws in place, but we are not enforcing them.  That needs to be addressed.

I do think mental health plays a part.  I have not looked into the Vegas shooter, or the kid from Florida, but I believe the majority of the shooters prior to that were on some kind of prescription medication, I believe most of them were mental health medications.  Perhaps we should relax some of the hippa regulations and make prescription records part of the background check.  We maintain a "Do Not Fly" list, so why can't we have a "Do Not Buy" list?

I'm not completely against raising the age to purchase a firearm to 21, but I would like to see an exception for active duty military.  If Uncle Sam and put a gun in your hand and sends you off to kill the yellow man (Bruce Springsteen reference, not a racial comment), it seems you should be able to buy one at home.

Schools need to be secured.  My kid's school is in the middle of nowhere, but it is completely locked down from the outside during the day, and you can only be buzzed in through one door.  Why was something similar not in place in Florida?  I'm also not against a teacher carrying a concealed weapon on a voluntary basis, and only after completing extensive training.  As it stands, a shooter knows he/she (why are all of the shooters boys?) can go into a school and face very  little if any resistance.  It's a whole other ball game when people are shooting back at you. 

I haven't even touched on family dynamics, or video games etc.  I think this is a VERY  complicated issue that will require a lot of uncomfortable reflection and questions.  I do not think there is an easy answer.  The easy answer for those who do not have guns or care to have guns is to ban them as it inconveniences them the least.  I'm open to compromise but I think some of these underlying issues need to be addressed before any real change can take place.

Just my 2 cents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Muddy River said:

I certainly do not think I have all the answers, and I also don't think there is any one right answer.  This is a multi faceted problem, but these are some things that I think should garner some attention:

There are processes already in place to keep people like the Florida shooter from getting a gun.  As I understand it, the police were called to this kid's home something like 29 times, and others reported him to the FBI.  How does that not show on his background check when he went to purchase the gun?  What part of the system in place, failed?  Let's look at that and fix the problem so that doesn't happen again.

As I  pointed out earlier, in 2010, the ATF referred over 4700 cases for prosecution where people tried to get a gun illegally.  44 of those cases were prosecuted and 13 people were punished.  Why are we not enforcing the laws that are in place?  Why are prosecutors not picking up these cases?  Why are so many going unpunished?  We need to prosecute all gun crimes with vigor.  We have laws in place, but we are not enforcing them.  That needs to be addressed.

I do think mental health plays a part.  I have not looked into the Vegas shooter, or the kid from Florida, but I believe the majority of the shooters prior to that were on some kind of prescription medication, I believe most of them were mental health medications.  Perhaps we should relax some of the hippa regulations and make prescription records part of the background check.  We maintain a "Do Not Fly" list, so why can't we have a "Do Not Buy" list?

I'm not completely against raising the age to purchase a firearm to 21, but I would like to see an exception for active duty military.  If Uncle Sam and put a gun in your hand and sends you off to kill the yellow man (Bruce Springsteen reference, not a racial comment), it seems you should be able to buy one at home.

Schools need to be secured.  My kid's school is in the middle of nowhere, but it is completely locked down from the outside during the day, and you can only be buzzed in through one door.  Why was something similar not in place in Florida?  I'm also not against a teacher carrying a concealed weapon on a voluntary basis, and only after completing extensive training.  As it stands, a shooter knows he/she (why are all of the shooters boys?) can go into a school and face very  little if any resistance.  It's a whole other ball game when people are shooting back at you. 

I haven't even touched on family dynamics, or video games etc.  I think this is a VERY  complicated issue that will require a lot of uncomfortable reflection and questions.  I do not think there is an easy answer.  The easy answer for those who do not have guns or care to have guns is to ban them as it inconveniences them the least.  I'm open to compromise but I think some of these underlying issues need to be addressed before any real change can take place.

Just my 2 cents.

Good post, this is the kind of dialogue I think most people are looking for. Compromise in the context of addressing complicated questions is a necessity. I do not want teachers carrying weapons, way too many opportunities for disaster there, but again good post reflecting an open mind in the face of disagreement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I keep seeing the "well regulated" part of the second mentioned as an argument for more regulations. In the time of the framing of the bill of rights "well regulated" did not have the same meaning as we would read it today. "Well regulated" in the context of the time meant well trained. With the source for training not specified. 

The resistance to new regulations is because there are already systems in place that are not being properly administered as already mentioned. Also, the popular target is AR15/semi-auto rifles which make up about .0034% of gun homicides. 

The energy spent on debating guns could be of better use finding the root cause of why this happens. 

In Sept 2016 the shooter was found to have drank gasoline and was cutting himself but was not recommended for involuntary commitment.  America has no problem stuffing our prisons full of people. I would argue the states should have more discretion when dealing with these people. As it is now in most places the parents ( who are emotionally involved ) have the final say.

Also mentioned earlier is the use of pharmaceuticals.  I think there should be some focus on the chemical manipulation of peoples brains. 

The religious/moral debate typically devolves into Christian vs no religion. The separation of church and state is to prevent government from establishing a state religion. Not to create a secular society. But people will fight any mention of god anywhere because they find it offensive, rather than being an adult and simply ignoring what they dont like. The are dozens of types of religious thought and I dont care what one chooses to worship/not worship, and it doesn't take a religion to have it, but a society needs a moral foundation. 

This event also highlights the irony of people wanting the authority figures that failed them to have more authority. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mrflynn03 said:

I keep seeing the "well regulated" part of the second mentioned as an argument for more regulations. In the time of the framing of the bill of rights "well regulated" did not have the same meaning as we would read it today. "Well regulated" in the context of the time meant well trained. With the source for training not specified. 

The resistance to new regulations is because there are already systems in place that are not being properly administered as already mentioned. Also, the popular target is AR15/semi-auto rifles which make up about .0034% of gun homicides. 

The energy spent on debating guns could be of better use finding the root cause of why this happens. 

In Sept 2016 the shooter was found to have drank gasoline and was cutting himself but was not recommended for involuntary commitment.  America has no problem stuffing our prisons full of people. I would argue the states should have more discretion when dealing with these people. As it is now in most places the parents ( who are emotionally involved ) have the final say.

Also mentioned earlier is the use of pharmaceuticals.  I think there should be some focus on the chemical manipulation of peoples brains. 

The religious/moral debate typically devolves into Christian vs no religion. The separation of church and state is to prevent government from establishing a state religion. Not to create a secular society. But people will fight any mention of god anywhere because they find it offensive, rather than being an adult and simply ignoring what they dont like. The are dozens of types of religious thought and I dont care what one chooses to worship/not worship, and it doesn't take a religion to have it, but a society needs a moral foundation. 

This event also highlights the irony of people wanting the authority figures that failed them to have more authority. 

Good post, there were a couple things I don't agree with, however. Who cares what we'll regulated meant in 1789? It isn't well regulated by today's standards. In 1789 we only considered black people to count as 3/5th a person. Times change. 

I don't think most people are offended by a mention of god. What is offensive is being told my morals basis (or apparently lack of one) comes from god. I'm not looking to get into a god debate, but I will debate morality all day. What evidence exists that someone is more likely to be moral if they are religious? I understand you went as far as to separate religion from morality but other posts in this thread went as far as to say religion was the basis for morality.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, KoB2011 said:

Good post, there were a couple things I don't agree with, however. Who cares what we'll regulated meant in 1789? It isn't well regulated by today's standards. In 1789 we only considered black people to count as 3/5th a person. Times change. 

I don't think most people are offended by a mention of god. What is offensive is being told my morals basis (or apparently lack of one) comes from god. I'm not looking to get into a god debate, but I will debate morality all day. What evidence exists that someone is more likely to be moral if they are religious? I understand you went as far as to separate religion from morality but other posts in this thread went as far as to say religion was the basis for morality.  

As to your first paragraph.  Black's being 3/5's of a person was a compromise to get the Constitution ratified.

As far as the second paragraph.  I say yes and no.  Religion does teach morals.  But I also will concur that being religious doesn't make you moral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, rico said:

As to your first paragraph.  Black's being 3/5's of a person was a compromise to get the Constitution ratified.

As far as the second paragraph.  I say yes and no.  Religion does teach morals.  But I also will concur that being religious doesn't make you moral.

I understand that was a compromise, what's your point?  It still illustrates that they didn't have everything right back in the 1780s....

Religion certainly can teach morals, but it also inarguably teaches bad things often as well.  The morals taught by religion can be found just as easily through other means. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, KoB2011 said:

I understand that was a compromise, what's your point?  It still illustrates that they didn't have everything right back in the 1780s....

Religion certainly can teach morals, but it also inarguably teaches bad things often as well.  The morals taught by religion can be found just as easily through other means. 

And society changes right?  Hind sight is always 20/20.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, rico said:

And society changes right?  Hind sight is always 20/20.  

Yes, society does change; we amended the Constitution to reflect those changes.  Now we aren't asking for an Amendment, just to interpret "well-regulated" as we understand it in modern times not in 1789.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/23/2018 at 2:29 PM, Hoosierhoopster said:

Jerry, no offense intended and I know people can feel strongly about church values, but there really isn't a basis to disagree that we live in a country founded on the separation of church and state, it's central to the Constitution itself. 

Now you ask me about how about believing in a higher being? No problem, and worship in church, not school. Separately, do you really believe mental illness is attributable to a lack of faith? That's completely unsupportable. Mental illness is a mental, and medical, condition.

Its easy to quote the constitution but one needs to take a deeper look at what the founding fathers idea of seperation of church and State.  Its ok to have prayer in congress in the Supreme court and oval office byt heaven forbid in our public schools. People beed to revisit their US History and Government to learn more about the men who founded this great country and gave us the right to argue about these ideals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/23/2018 at 8:00 PM, Muddy River said:

There is a tremendous amount of misinformation here.  First, none of the school shootings, or mass shootings in general were committed by someone with an automatic fire arm.  They are far too expensive, and highly regulated for the average person, let alone the average crazy, so let's leave that where it is and move on.  Is Uncle Ralph's shotgun a Remington 1100, or any of the other hundreds of semi-automatic shotguns today?  Could Aunt Jean be shooting a 1911, or a Beretta 92 or a Glock?  All of those are semi-automatic as well.  The Browning BAR (No, AR doesn't stand for assault rifle, It's Browning Auto loading Rifle, and it is a semi-automatic) is one of the most popular hunting rifles in the world today.  Are you for banning all of that?  They are the same as the AR 15. The AR is not a rapid fire weapon.

I get it, people who don't have guns or care to have guns will jump at the easiest answer, because it affects them the least.  That's why when people ask if we should ban cars because of drunk drivers, it seems ridiculous.  Everyone has a car, and no one wants to lose it because of a few idiots.  We feel the same about firearms.  As you are on an  IU message board, would you be in favor of eliminating college and pro sports?  Every year people are diagnosed with brain injuries and every year players from high school on up drop dead on the field or court of play, yet we play on.  Shouldn't we ban that, aren't those kids just as important as the kids in the school shootings, even if it saves one life, wouldn't it be worth it?  See, it's a lot harder  when something that you enjoy is threatened, but much easier when you have no interest.

And, the day we allow the government to decide what we do and do not need, is probably the day I check  out.

You are right there are many options these shooters could use but for some crazy reason most choose the AR 15

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Billingsley99 said:

 People beed to revisit their US History and Government to learn more about the men who founded this great country and gave us the right to argue about these ideals.

1

Yeah, I'd highly recommend you do that.  Ever read Thomas Jefferson's Bible?  Do you know what John Stuart Mill and Ben Franklin thought about things?  How about Thomas Payne? 

But hey, from 1954 on we have been 'One Nation Under God' so at least there's that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

Yeah, I'd highly recommend you do that.  Ever read Thomas Jefferson's Bible?  Do you know what John Stuart Mill and Ben Franklin thought about things?  How about Thomas Payne? 

But hey, from 1954 on we have been 'One Nation Under God' so at least there's that. 

I specifically need to? We all need to study i agree. Yes i have read most of what u reccomended thank you for the suggestions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Billingsley99 said:

I specifically need to? We all need to study i agree. Yes i have read most of what u reccomended thank you for the suggestions.

We all need to, I agree.  Reading, and I don't mean fiction although that has a place to, is something we should all do much more frequently.  And we should all read things from multiple points of view. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Billingsley99 said:

Of course there is but why invite God into either if true seperation of church and State is what was intended. Just leave God out completely 

From my point of view they should definitely leave god completely out of it, but so long as the prayers remain of the legislative variety (i.e. a general god, not a specific god) I can ignore it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

Yeah, I'd highly recommend you do that.  Ever read Thomas Jefferson's Bible?  Do you know what John Stuart Mill and Ben Franklin thought about things?  How about Thomas Payne? 

But hey, from 1954 on we have been 'One Nation Under God' so at least there's that. 

Jeffersons bible was meant for himself only if i remember correctly  he stressed the moral aspect of Christianity not the miraculously aspect.  Right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

From my point of view they should definitely leave god completely out of it, but so long as the prayers remain of the legislative variety (i.e. a general god, not a specific god) I can ignore it. 

From your point of view but they do not. Like many things in our society our leaders pick and choose what to adhere to and what to interpret as the gray area. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Billingsley99 said:

Jeffersons bible was meant for himself only if i remember correctly  he stressed the moral aspect of Christianity not the miraculously aspect.  Right?

Hmm I'm not sure who it was meant for, but yes it cut out the miracles and focused on the teachings of Jesus.  We could have a whole different discussion about the teachings of Jesus, but that's probably not appropriate here, my point was no religion or supernatural is needed for morality.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Billingsley99 said:

From your point of view but they do not. Like many things in our society our leaders pick and choose what to adhere to and what to interpret as the gray area. 

Oh yeah, I'm aware that they don't actually do it.  Even when the verbiage may not be invoked, the view points often are.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...