Jump to content

So Very Sad....


Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, mrflynn03 said:

What if indiana passed a law outlawing gay marriage and arrested and imprisoned a gay couple who were travelling through the state?  So then the federal govt passes a law saying gay marriage is legal everywhere nullifying state laws. Gay marriage isnt constitutionally protected though the supreme court has or would have a ruling favoring gay marriage in this situation. So i say with reciprocity, if it would pass then send it to the courts. 

Or maybe im just being facetious.

Gay marriage is protected constitutionally; aside from that, it wouldn't be a crime it would be that marriage not being recognized and that did happen frequently before it was a protected right. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 515
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1 hour ago, Reacher said:

HH, I'm not as up to speed on this as you are. I was piggy backing on some earlier comments. Seems to me there should be compromise somewhere. As far as states rights, states do recognize other states Drivers Licenses. Kentucky has a minimum age of 16. They don't arrest 15 year olds from other states do they? One could argue that a 14 year old from Iowa with a valid license poses a threat to drivers in KY. Common sense to me is the same reciprocity should apply for a different type of state issued ID. Why doesn't it? Drivers licenses are not enumerated in the constitution whereas the right bear arms is. Mr Flynn's argument makes sense to me as well. I know there are arguments and emotions at play on both sides. My personal view is that we should error on the side of less regulation. Don't restrict rights unless there is a reason to do so. Bringing it back to Parkland, the Cruz kid should have been arrested , provided counseling, been subject to background checks when buying guns that would have prevented such purchases, been on the radar of the FBI, etc. Regulations were already in place to deal with such an issue and were not followed. I don't see more rules that will not be followed by authorities and broken by criminals anyways as the solution. 

I'll admit my bias is antiregulation due to the industry I work in. Lets mandate prospectuses to safeguard the public from making uninformed investment choices ???

Reacher my friend, come on, you're not really equating driver's licenses to concealed gun carry, are you? No, they do not equate, and particularly not from a Constitutional perspective. Why do you think multiple State AG's are calling this attempted action unconstitutional? We're talking about states' police powers and right to enact their own laws to regulate health and safety, of course gun rights are different than driver's licenses. You're also talking about anti-regulation on one hand, and then having the Fed regulate state rights on the other. Those two do not mesh. I'm trying not to get into the underlying politics here, but from your arguments I tend to think you don't want the Fed regulating away state rights, but that's precisely where your argument goes. In any event, the simple fact is that states have very different gun carry laws, and again some have no permit requirement whatsoever, and it's absurd to think that states who have strong permitting and licensing requirements should be forced to give "reciprocity" to states with lax (or even effectively zero) gun carry restrictions. Why do you think multiple law enforcement agencies and officials oppose this attempted weakening of their gun carry restrictions?? What does this have to do with investment choices?? Nothing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is a state license to own or carry a firearm different than a license to drive a car? States set their own requirement for each.  If anything, states should not be in the busiiness of regulating firearms since that is a federal right where driving is not. I'm not sure I get the health and safety angle either. People die all the time in car accidents. Plenty of statistics show that guns prevent more crime/ deaths than they cause - at least among law abiding citizens. If gun laws are the answer, don't we need more laws for baseball bats and knives?

You are right, I prefer individual rights over states rights over federal rights. An individual should have the right to protect themselves with a firearm if they wish and/or get married regardless of sexual orientation. Why federal regulation? Ideally, it should not be needed. But it is a constitutional right, so it makes sense to me that the federal gov't could step in to help the states play nice and have a level playing field as well as insuring some states/ cities do not infringe on that federally enumerated right. 

Just because a state AG (or multiple) calls something something, does not make it so. Seems perfectly logical that state AGs are going to argue what is in their political interests. Because there is a difference, the Supreme Court will eventually weigh in to settle the matter. If it was so obvious and one sided, there would not be any conflict on the issue. 

It's kind of ironic that I've gotten into this debates on guns as I'm not a gun zealot or NRA member. I believe I chimed in because I saw the push for more regulations. Gun regulations have nothing to do with Securities regulations. Admittedly, I'm no expert on gun regulations and so I can't say what makes sense to me is not without legal inconsistencies. That is your expertise. By bringing in investments, my expertise, I was trying to say that regulations are not always the answer. What might have been intended to help people (an investment prospectus) may have actually confused more people and created expenses and complication for people who did not need it. Just like the good intention of preventing mass shootings may have unintended consequences of preventing a law abiding individual from protecting themselves or others from a criminal. I get that this is immeasurable and hypothetical.

I'm not saying we do not need any regulations on anything. I do think we do have too many in most areas. While that complexity may mean job security to me, you, accountants, and others, I feel the pendulum has swung too far in that direction. Lets enforce the rules / laws we have first and see what happens. If that was the case, The Parkland shooting would likely have been prevented.

Lastly, I do appreciate your insight so don't worry about me taking anything personal or being offended. I appreciate the civil HSN dialogue :cheers:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hoosierhoopster said:

Reacher my friend, come on, you're not really equating driver's licenses to concealed gun carry, are you? No, they do not equate, and particularly not from a Constitutional perspective. Why do you think multiple State AG's are calling this attempted action unconstitutional? We're talking about states' police powers and right to enact their own laws to regulate health and safety, of course gun rights are different than driver's licenses. You're also talking about anti-regulation on one hand, and then having the Fed regulate state rights on the other. Those two do not mesh. I'm trying not to get into the underlying politics here, but from your arguments I tend to think you don't want the Fed regulating away state rights, but that's precisely where your argument goes. In any event, the simple fact is that states have very different gun carry laws, and again some have no permit requirement whatsoever, and it's absurd to think that states who have strong permitting and licensing requirements should be forced to give "reciprocity" to states with lax (or even effectively zero) gun carry restrictions. Why do you think multiple law enforcement agencies and officials oppose this attempted weakening of their gun carry restrictions?? What does this have to do with investment choices?? Nothing. 

Leave it to a lawyer to come up with something so convoluted and bass ackwards. How is eliminating state infringement of Constitutional rights an infringement of those rights? You are starting with the assumption that the States have the right to restrict the carry of firearms when the Bill of Rights says the exact opposite. What is "absurd" is thinking that States have any business restricting rights inherent in the individual and recognized in the Bill of Rights, recognized not granted or created by. If you really want to talk about "absurdities", then lets talk about how a law abiding citizen with a gun can suddenly become a criminal simply by crossing a state line, like Shaneen Allen and others like her. 

The answer to the questions in Bold is pretty simple,  it is politics. What isn't clear is why highlighting a few state AG's and law enforcement agencies from left leaning locales has any bearing on anything. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ Hey, glad you're not taking anything personally and nothing like that intended my friend :cheers:

Licensing/regulating firearms is significantly different than licensing driving. For starters, the sole purpose of a gun is to kill. The purpose of a car is transportation. They are not, even remotely, in the same category. Gun regulations/laws/restrictions are to save lives in relation to weapons designed to kill. Car licensing/laws are to promote safe and responsible driving. Just because you can kill someone with a car does not make it a gun. As to state rights on guns, that is absolutely a key aspect of a state's police powers, which is a key aspect of a state's constitutional power. Related, the Fed has federal authority over federal crime, not state crime. The states have state authority to regulate state criminal law. Gun ownership/licensing is not a federal right, and in any event you're getting back into pushing the Fed over state rights.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, hoosierBGH said:

Leave it to a lawyer to come up with something so convoluted and bass ackwards. How is eliminating state infringement of Constitutional rights an infringement of those rights? You are starting with the assumption that the States have the right to restrict the carry of firearms when the Bill of Rights says the exact opposite. What is "absurd" is thinking that States have any business restricting rights inherent in the individual and recognized in the Bill of Rights, recognized not granted or created by. If you really want to talk about "absurdities", then lets talk about how a law abiding citizen with a gun can suddenly become a criminal simply by crossing a state line, like Shaneen Allen and others like her. 

The answer to the questions in Bold is pretty simple,  it is politics. What isn't clear is why highlighting a few state AG's and law enforcement agencies from left leaning locales has any bearing on anything. 

Leave it to a poster with an agenda and an attitude to post annoying claptrap. Stop it with the antagonistic and rude posts. Next one gets you a ban. Your choice, you've worn this out. What is absurd is your deliberate, transparent agenda-driven but blatantly inaccurate posting. The states' well recognized police powers, which are central to concepts of federalism, are just that, well recognized. Right, multiple state AG's (and law professors, etc.) are ignorant as to your ingenious self-directed interpretation. I could cite the countless articles, legal and otherwise to support what I wrote, but I'm not going to waste my time dealing with your agenda-driven monologue. Yes, each state has its own laws, including pursuant to their well-recognized state police power, to regulate gun licensing/carry, and no, that's not absurd, it's well-settled law. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hoosierhoopster said:

Licensing/regulating firearms is significantly different than licensing driving. For starters, the sole purpose of a gun is to kill.

You and I have vastly differing opinions regarding the purposes of guns. I look at a gun as a deterrent. I linked an article earlier about a local guy using his gun to stop a neighbor from being stabbed to death. His gun saved a life. It didn't kill.

Guns only kill in the hands of criminals. For a law abiding citizen, it will most often be used as a deterrent or in self defense. Felons are already prohibited from possessing firearms and murder is already a crime so do you just want an extra offense to charge the murderer with? Isn't murder, or attempted murder, sufficient?

Is my viewpoint that gun regulations prevent innocent victims from being victims of crime wrong? There is a whole host of solid data that back that up. Again, I linked an article earlier today about mass shootings prevented by lawful gun owners. How about the one not far from you in Sutherland Springs. Or the one today in MD?

Are you opposed to the US nuclear arsenal as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was another High School shooting today in Maryland.

Earlier there was some discussion about having police in the schools. For those that opposed the idea, are you still against the idea considering that todays shooting was ended by a Sherriffs Deputy stationed in the school? While no one knows, my guess is that his presence saved some lives.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/shooting-reported-great-mills-maryland-high-school-n858186

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/20/us/great-mills-high-school-shooting/index.html

Kid quoted in the CNN article- "I didn't really expect for this to happen. I do always feel safe, though, because they always have police at the school,"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Reacher said:

You and I have vastly differing opinions regarding the purposes of guns. I look at a gun as a deterrent. I linked an article earlier about a local guy using his gun to stop a neighbor from being stabbed to death. His gun saved a life. It didn't kill.

Guns only kill in the hands of criminals. For a law abiding citizen, it will most often be used as a deterrent or in self defense. Felons are already prohibited from possessing firearms and murder is already a crime so do you just want an extra offense to charge the murderer with? Isn't murder, or attempted murder, sufficient?

Is my viewpoint that gun regulations prevent innocent victims from being victims of crime wrong? There is a whole host of solid data that back that up. Again, I linked an article earlier today about mass shootings prevented by lawful gun owners. How about the one not far from you in Sutherland Springs. Or the one today in MD?

Are you opposed to the US nuclear arsenal as well?

Well we certainly do Reacher. Guns kill all the time -- kids in households by household accidents, happens all the time. Hunting accidents. Etc. etc. Guns certainly do not only kill in the hands of criminals. How about all the cop killings of unarmed young black men? That's a whole other topic for sure, and sometimes those cops are criminals, as later found guilty of the crime, but often they're just cops shooting unarmed men by accident, or stupidity. We can certainly all disagree about regulations and what regulations should be in place, but that is a matter of state rights/state policing and safety laws, and guns kill all kinds of people in all kinds of hands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, KoB2011 said:

Gay marriage is protected constitutionally; aside from that, it wouldn't be a crime it would be that marriage not being recognized and that did happen frequently before it was a protected right. 

So Is the second.  Much earlier than my example.  ever heard of sodomy laws? They existed at one time.  Gay marriage would have been a crime at one time.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, hoosierBGH said:

Leaveconstantlyawyer to inome up Twith someth ing so convoluted and bass ackwards. How is eliminating state infringement of Constitutional rights an infringement of those rights? You are starting with the assumption that the States have the right to restrict the carry of firearms when the Bill of Rights says the exact opposite. What is "absurd" is thinking that States have any business restricting rights inherent in the individual and recognized in the Bill of Rights, recognized not granted or created by. If you really want to talk about "absurdities", then lets talk about how a law abiding citizen with a gun can suddenly become a criminal simply by crossing a state line, like Shaneen Allen and others like her. 

The answer to the questions in Bold is pretty simple,  it is politics. What isn't clear is why highlighting a few state AG's and law enforcement agencies from left leaning locales has any bearing on anything. 

Exactly what I have been trying to express.  

My point In adding this to the debate Is to highlight the unwillingness of the gun control advocates to give anything to gun owners while constantly demanding more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Hoosierhoopster said:

Leave it to a poster with an agenda and an attitude to post annoying claptrap. Stop it with the antagonistic and rude posts. Next one gets you a ban. Your choice, you've worn this out. What is absurd is your deliberate, transparent agenda-driven but blatantly inaccurate posting. The states' well recognized police powers, which are central to concepts of federalism, are just that, well recognized. Right, multiple state AG's (and law professors, etc.) are ignorant as to your ingenious self-directed interpretation. I could cite the countless articles, legal and otherwise to support what I wrote, but I'm not going to waste my time dealing with your agenda-driven monologue. Yes, each state has its own laws, including pursuant to their well-recognized state police power, to regulate gun licensing/carry, and no, that's not absurd, it's well-settled law. 

I apologize for my post coming off as antagonistic and rude. That was truly not my intent. Nor was it my intent to give offense to you or anyone else in this discussion. Despite my lack of intent, I still allowed it to happen and for that I'm sincerely sorry. I am very passionate about this topic, even more passionate than I am about IU basketball in fact because I've been on the defenseless victim end before. Though the situation turned out much better than it could have, I would rather others not be defenseless in the same situation. I post this not to excuse my comments or the offense I have given but to explain my passion and where I'm coming from. I will refrain from posting in this thread again and if another thread on this topic comes up, I will endeavor even harder to stick to just the facts and back them up with links and sources as I have done previously instead of straying from that as I did in my previous post. Again, I'm sincerely sorry. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, hoosierBGH said:

I apologize for my post coming off as antagonistic and rude. That was truly not my intent. Nor was it my intent to give offense to you or anyone else in this discussion. Despite my lack of intent, I still allowed it to happen and for that I'm sincerely sorry. I am very passionate about this topic, even more passionate than I am about IU basketball in fact because I've been on the defenseless victim end before. Though the situation turned out much better than it could have, I would rather others not be defenseless in the same situation. I post this not to excuse my comments or the offense I have given but to explain my passion and where I'm coming from. I will refrain from posting in this thread again and if another thread on this topic comes up, I will endeavor even harder to stick to just the facts and back them up with links and sources as I have done previously instead of straying from that as I did in my previous post. Again, I'm sincerely sorry. 

Thank you for coming back and posting this, that was thoughtful and appreciated. We all say things at times out of frustration or due to passion on a topic that go too far, and I certainly include myself in that. Let's all just try to respect everyone else's opinions, and especially those we disagree with -- disagreeing with the opinions and rationales, including strongly, but without going at the person. Again, thanks for coming back with this. Props.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mrflynn03 said:

So Is the second.  Much earlier than my example.  ever heard of sodomy laws? They existed at one time.  Gay marriage would have been a crime at one time.  

Sodomy laws have nothing to do with gay marriage. They have to do with the act of sodomy which can involve a man and woman just as easily as two men. This will probably blow your mind to learn but there are plenty of same-sex male couple that do not choose that was to be intimate. 

The Second Amendment is protected by the Constitution, no one is disuputing that. No part of that says each state has to have the same laws and have reciprocity. If you think I'm wrong show me the SCOTUS ruling that says so. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mrflynn03 said:

Exactly what I have been trying to express.  

My point In adding this to the debate Is to highlight the unwillingness of the gun control advocates to give anything to gun owners while constantly demanding more.

This is a false dichotomy. Gun reform is going to happen, the question is if your side wants to be a part of it or live with what you get. 

There are real, measurable changes happening in our country to our electorate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Hoosierhoopster said:

Well we certainly do Reacher. Guns kill all the time -- kids in households by household accidents, happens all the time. Hunting accidents. Etc. etc. Guns certainly do not only kill in the hands of criminals. How about all the cop killings of unarmed young black men? That's a whole other topic for sure, and sometimes those cops are criminals, as later found guilty of the crime, but often they're just cops shooting unarmed men by accident, or stupidity. We can certainly all disagree about regulations and what regulations should be in place, but that is a matter of state rights/state policing and safety laws, and guns kill all kinds of people in all kinds of hands.

Do you give no credence to guns as a deterrent and the tens of millions of Americans who feel that way?

Then you bring up gun accidents? Why is not then relevant to bring up car accidents that are much more common?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mrflynn03 said:

What kind of gun reform do you think will happen? How long do you think it will take? 

I agree something will eventually happen. I just wonder if I will be around to not comply with whatever form it takes. 

I'm not sure what will happen, but I think we will possibly get something after the mid-terms. Projecting out further than that can be tough, but if I were to guess right now we will see Democrats control both chambers and the presidency in 2020; that's when we will see major change if nothing is done before then. The compromise is do something now and have a part in it or continue to block it and you will no longer have a say. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Reacher said:

Do you give no credence to guns as a deterrent and the tens of millions of Americans who feel that way?

Then you bring up gun accidents? Why is not then relevant to bring up car accidents that are much more common?

Personally, I don't give two cat farts how anyone feels. I care about data and evidence; right now that all suggests guns are more dangerous than they are protective. We can and should take measures to protect ourselves from guns; every other developed country in the world has. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Reacher said:

Do you give no credence to guns as a deterrent and the tens of millions of Americans who feel that way?

Then you bring up gun accidents? Why is not then relevant to bring up car accidents that are much more common?

Reacher, I feel we are no longer really discussing the topic, and instead it's become a let me prove I'm right, turn the blind eye kind of discussion. To the extent that's coming from me, then my bad. 

On your questions, as I have said several times in this thread, I have no issue, whatsoever, with people who want to have a hand gun in their household for protection, or for people who want to hunt (for that matter, heard a report this morning that hunting is down about 50% which leads to problems in conservation efforts). Whether or to what extent guns are really a deterrent (regardless of the actual number of people who feel that way), though, is an open question. You don't post a sign on your house that says Gun in House. You post a sign that says dog, and I think there are plenty of studies that that is actually a deterrent -- dogs bark and attack intruders. 

I brought up gun accidents for the obvious reason that you said guns only kill in the hands of criminals. That's clearly not true, and I'm sure you realize that. Guns kill all the time, and gun accidents, on which there are all kinds of statistics, are a real part of that. However, again, I only brought that up because of your sweeping comment, and I do not oppose, at all, the right of (properly licensed, background-checked) people to buy a gun for self-protection in the house. I do have a problem with concealed carry, generally, and I absolutely have a major problem with the naive notion that there should be some national reciprocity forcing states to accept whatever weak gun restriction might be passed in another jurisdiction. There's a reason why that is strongly opposed by law enforcement, which from your various posts I would think you would appreciate. 

The context in which you brought up car accidents was different. Cars are not designed to kill people. Guns are. Of course people use guns for protection, that doesn't change that their only purpose is to kill. It doesn't change that there have to be regulations, laws, and common sense restrictions on who can get their hands on a weapon designed to kill, and who can get their hands on a weapon that is designed with high capacity magazines so it can kill as many people as possible. Why talk about cars in this context? Cars are designed for transportation. You can kill a person with a bottle of milk, that doesn't make it a gun. You can kill a person with a baseball bat. That doesn't make it a gun. Cars are cars, guns are guns. 

At the end of the day the simple point here is that every right has restrictions. You do not have an unfettered right to do anything, under the Constitution. You have the right of free speech under the First Amendment. As the most often used example of a limitation, that does not mean you get to stand up in a crowded movie theatre and yell fire! Because that action endangers people, unreasonably and your "right of free speech" in that context is outweighed by the danger your speech creates. The same is true as to any other right, and that includes your right to bear arms (leaving aside that that right, again, was one created to arm an urban militia against the British). You have the right to own a gun. That does not mean you have the right to buy any gun you want, at any age, with any high capacity magazine you want, with any bump stock you want, etc. I am not trying to argue that you don't have a right to buy a gun, so please don't slant my argument in that direction, or compare it to driving a car. I am saying your right has and has to have reasonable limitations, and what we're trying to talk about in this thread is what those limitations should be. To me, that includes reasonable age restrictions (because maturity is clearly important in this context), reasonable limitations on the type of gun (I see no reason, whatsoever, why you need a bump stock, or for that matter a high capacity magazine capable semi-automatic rifle), etc., so that we can try to LIMIT who gets their hands on the types of weapons that are being used every single freaking year in multiple school and other public shootings. To me, responding that we'll just arm teachers and put cops everywhere is a dead end that does nothing more than put more guns of every type out there, and that's extremely short-sighted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to add about guns being designed to kill; short of target practice or shooting at clay pigeons, everytime you pull a trigger the intent is to harm and/or kill what you are firing at. Is that really debatable? 

Cars on the other hand are 99.999% not used with the intent to harm. Yet we will have many more restrictions and regulations around their use than we do guns, why is that? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, KoB2011 said:

Just to add about guns being designed to kill; short of target practice or shooting at clay pigeons, everytime you pull a trigger the intent is to harm and/or kill what you are firing at. Is that really debatable? 

 

Come on now.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If guns are meant to kill, then everyone who buys a gun must be a killer and or at least willing to kill ??? That makes no sense.

I disagree with the premise that guns are solely to kill. If you cannot respect that, I do not know what to say. 

Guns already have restrictions. Lots of them. Look at the ones in MD for example. Restrictions should have prevented the MD shooter from owning one- but didn't. 

I do feel like we are talking past each other to an extent. I am totally for common sense restrictions as outlined earlier. I'm all for compromise and debate. You cite mass shootings that maybe kill a couple of dozen per year but seem unwilling to recognize the thousands of lives saved / crimes prevented by lawful owners. Those people have rights too. It already takes weeks and lots of $ in most states to get a gun- at least lawfully. Go ahead and restrict arms with the law abiding populace and then only the police and bad guys have guns. Police are not going to follow you around like they do for politicians/ celebrities. Tons of data support the fact that more guns = less crime. I've tried to point that out. Crime is down at the University of Kansas after allowing concealed carry. Sorry, but that does not support guns= killing.  If you want to stop the killing from guns, why not enforce the existing laws in the inner cities where 90% of it is happening?

I wonder if we will find out the TX bomber was prevented from getting a gun so he turned to bombs instead?

As far as law enforcement, I think you will find the majority support concealed carry. Of course 100% won't. Of those, could some have a political angle? Like the Chicago Police Superintendent appointed by the mayor? I have followed the Chicago Police blog for years and can tell you that Chicago police overwhelmingly support concealed carry. Many seem jealous of the concealed carriers who can legally shoot in self defense which, ironically, Chicago Police officers, having been neutered by the ACLU, are not really able to. Hence you see the lack of policing leading to even more crime.

Getting back on topic- would you prefer the school your kids attend have an armed presence for their safety? I would. If some communities feel otherwise, it is a free country and I understand and respect that. They should also respect those that want the armed presence. Let each locality decide what is best for them. What is wrong with that?

We saw the Sherriff in Great Mills MD HS save lives. On the other hand, NY pulled the police out of its and replaced with unarmed monitors. Parents are howling in protest.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/police-officers-pulled-from-new-york-city-schools-after-florida-massacre_2463745.html

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Reacher said:

If guns are meant to kill, then everyone who buys a gun must be a killer and or at least willing to kill ??? That makes no sense.

I disagree with the premise that guns are solely to kill. If you cannot respect that, I do not know what to say. 

Guns already have restrictions. Lots of them. Look at the ones in MD for example. Restrictions should have prevented the MD shooter from owning one- but didn't. 

I do feel like we are talking past each other to an extent. I am totally for common sense restrictions as outlined earlier. I'm all for compromise and debate. You cite mass shootings that maybe kill a couple of dozen per year but seem unwilling to recognize the thousands of lives saved / crimes prevented by lawful owners. Those people have rights too. It already takes weeks and lots of $ in most states to get a gun- at least lawfully. Go ahead and restrict arms with the law abiding populace and then only the police and bad guys have guns. Police are not going to follow you around like they do for politicians/ celebrities. Tons of data support the fact that more guns = less crime. I've tried to point that out. Crime is down at the University of Kansas after allowing concealed carry. Sorry, but that does not support guns= killing.  If you want to stop the killing from guns, why not enforce the existing laws in the inner cities where 90% of it is happening?

I wonder if we will find out the TX bomber was prevented from getting a gun so he turned to bombs instead?

As far as law enforcement, I think you will find the majority support concealed carry. Of course 100% won't. Of those, could some have a political angle? Like the Chicago Police Superintendent appointed by the mayor? I have followed the Chicago Police blog for years and can tell you that Chicago police overwhelmingly support concealed carry. Many seem jealous of the concealed carriers who can legally shoot in self defense which, ironically, Chicago Police officers, having been neutered by the ACLU, are not really able to. Hence you see the lack of policing leading to even more crime.

Getting back on topic- would you prefer the school your kids attend have an armed presence for their safety? I would. If some communities feel otherwise, it is a free country and I understand and respect that. They should also respect those that want the armed presence. Let each locality decide what is best for them. What is wrong with that?

We saw the Sherriff in Great Mills MD HS save lives. On the other hand, NY pulled the police out of its and replaced with unarmed monitors. Parents are howling in protest.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/police-officers-pulled-from-new-york-city-schools-after-florida-massacre_2463745.html

 

What are guns meant for if not for killing or causing harm? I'm seriously struggling to come up with any other purpose. 

I've been told my entire life not to own a gun if you aren't willing to shoot someone with it, are you saying that's not true for the overwhelming majority of gun owners?

I've still not seen any compelling data that guns save people at a rate greater than accidental injury. Even if it exists, saving someone from being robbed at the expense of that person's life potential is not acceptable for civilized society. It's essentially advocating thieves deserve to die which is irreconcilable with any modern theory on justice, morality or punishment that I know of. 

I would prefer my child go to a school with no guns present. Especially if it is a teacher with the gun. There's really no way to reconcile those two sides into a compromise, perhaps we should let the facts and data decide? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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




×
×
  • Create New...