rico Posted March 22, 2018 Report Share Posted March 22, 2018 1 hour ago, KoB2011 said: They made regulatory changes after that; if your best example is something two decades old that resulted in regulatory changes then you're proving the point that those changes can work. And the people in Texas would disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrflynn03 Posted March 22, 2018 Report Share Posted March 22, 2018 @Reacher https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/26/assault-weapon-ban-clinton-crime-bill-democratic-policy Im sure there is data on sales at the time but this article sums up what was happening pretty well. Also, I think the focus gets put on guns because they are tangible and easier to debate than dealing with human error by the people entrusted to serve and protect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoB2011 Posted March 22, 2018 Report Share Posted March 22, 2018 1 hour ago, Reacher said: Why does law enforcement not crack down on that. There are straw buyer laws. I see local examples where charges are not even brought. The police do their job and get an arrest. The state decides not to prosecute and or the county releases them from jail. A quick Google search found this- http://www.guns.com/2017/04/17/straw-purchaser-with-4-felony-gun-charges-will-not-get-jail-time/ Sure we have a big problem with prosecution in this country, I totally agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoB2011 Posted March 22, 2018 Report Share Posted March 22, 2018 20 minutes ago, rico said: And the people in Texas would disagree. Can you ever just make your point clear without leaving so much for me to try and interpret? Which people in Texas? Why would they disagree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reacher Posted March 22, 2018 Report Share Posted March 22, 2018 20 minutes ago, mrflynn03 said: @Reacher https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/26/assault-weapon-ban-clinton-crime-bill-democratic-policy Im sure there is data on sales at the time but this article sums up what was happening pretty well. Also, I think the focus gets put on guns because they are tangible and easier to debate than dealing with human error by the people entrusted to serve and protect. I hope everybody reads this article. Guy obviously knows his stuff. I thought these 2 quotes were particularly interesting in light of our discussion here- When Clinton talks about an assault weapons ban, “she can enjoy the immediate reaction of cheering and adoring crowds, people who have a genuine belief that it’s a measure that will make sense and a measure that will make a difference, and it’s not”, he said. “I believe it (gun ban) created a category of gun ownership that didn’t exist before. These were casual, recreational shooters that might not have gone out of the way to put down money for something like that,” Morgan said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoosierhoopster Posted March 22, 2018 Report Share Posted March 22, 2018 46 minutes ago, rico said: And the people in Texas would disagree. Not sure what you mean. I'm in Texas. A loan bomber -- who unfortunately appears to have been a 23-year old troubled kid -- clearly built bombs illegally, and with some very good FBI work was pretty quickly located, and would've been arrested but he blew himself up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rico Posted March 22, 2018 Report Share Posted March 22, 2018 26 minutes ago, Hoosierhoopster said: Not sure what you mean. I'm in Texas. A loan bomber -- who unfortunately appears to have been a 23-year old troubled kid -- clearly built bombs illegally, and with some very good FBI work was pretty quickly located, and would've been arrested but he blew himself up. My whole dang point to KoB and you as well was pages back. You two say the problem is guns, I said no. People that want to do harm will find a way to do it. And what is the difference between a lone bomber and a lone shooter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoB2011 Posted March 22, 2018 Report Share Posted March 22, 2018 32 minutes ago, rico said: My whole dang point to KoB and you as well was pages back. You two say the problem is guns, I said no. People that want to do harm will find a way to do it. And what is the difference between a lone bomber and a lone shooter? A lone shooter killed 17 people in minutes, a lone bomber killed two people over several weeks. Can you really not see the difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoosierhoopster Posted March 22, 2018 Report Share Posted March 22, 2018 54 minutes ago, rico said: My whole dang point to KoB and you as well was pages back. You two say the problem is guns, I said no. People that want to do harm will find a way to do it. And what is the difference between a lone bomber and a lone shooter? Rico I am having a hard time understanding where you're coming from here. We're talking about school and mass shootings -- which are occurring with what I think we can all agree are unfortunate frequency every single year resulting in the deaths, by shooting, of multiple kids in schools, as well as the deaths, by shooting, of multiple people in mass shootings, Vegas, etc. etc. etc. Of course people (criminals, nutjobs, etc.) will find ways to do harm. And of course we, as a country, should have laws and regulations in place to minimize whatever harm they can do. That is the entire point. And of course we have laws and regulations regarding illegal bomb making, and of course they limit and restrict what otherwise would happen. Again, that is the entire point. Just because someone gets their hands on the materials to build a bomb, and has the knowledge how to do so, and then acts on it, does not mean you shouldn't have laws and regulations to LIMIT that, and revisit it when needed to try to LIMIT that. And as KoB rightly points out, a lone shooter, because of the type of guns he was able to obtain, was able to kill a large number of people in short order. Look at what the Vegas shooter did, with his bump stock. Etc. etc. etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rico Posted March 22, 2018 Report Share Posted March 22, 2018 14 minutes ago, Hoosierhoopster said: Rico I am having a hard time understanding where you're coming from here. We're talking about school and mass shootings -- which are occurring with what I think we can all agree are unfortunate frequency every single year resulting in the deaths, by shooting, of multiple kids in schools, as well as the deaths, by shooting, of multiple people in mass shootings, Vegas, etc. etc. etc. Of course people (criminals, nutjobs, etc.) will find ways to do harm. And of course we, as a country, should have laws and regulations in place to minimize whatever harm they can do. That is the entire point. And of course we have laws and regulations regarding illegal bomb making, and of course they limit and restrict what otherwise would happen. Again, that is the entire point. Just because someone gets their hands on the materials to build a bomb, and has the knowledge how to do so, and then acts on it, does not mean you shouldn't have laws and regulations to LIMIT that, and revisit it when needed to try to LIMIT that. And as KoB rightly points out, a lone shooter, because of the type of guns he was able to obtain, was able to kill a large number of people in short order. Look at what the Vegas shooter did, with his bump stock. Etc. etc. etc. My point is just what you mentioned. People that want to create mayhem will....no matter what laws are in place. Lone bomber=lone shooter. Just didn't get the job done right. This is no "Shangrila". The issue needs to be dealt with socially. That is where the problem lies. Society changes? Humbug. We just have done a piss poor job in the house and in the schools to recognize potential problems. This issue is not a political thing. But yet people want to make it into one. Gun control will not solve the problem.......but yet some think it will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rico Posted March 22, 2018 Report Share Posted March 22, 2018 43 minutes ago, KoB2011 said: A lone shooter killed 17 people in minutes, a lone bomber killed two people over several weeks. Can you really not see the difference? How many did McVeigh kill? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoosierhoopster Posted March 22, 2018 Report Share Posted March 22, 2018 33 minutes ago, rico said: My point is just what you mentioned. People that want to create mayhem will....no matter what laws are in place. Lone bomber=lone shooter. Just didn't get the job done right. This is no "Shangrila". The issue needs to be dealt with socially. That is where the problem lies. Society changes? Humbug. We just have done a piss poor job in the house and in the schools to recognize potential problems. This issue is not a political thing. But yet people want to make it into one. Gun control will not solve the problem.......but yet some think it will. Rico man I just don't know how to engage you on this topic. You're just saying, as I understand, because people will do bad things no matter what laws are in place, we shouldn't do anything with laws and instead try to address it "socially." But Rico, laws are there to limit and reduce criminal behavior. No one thinks that because you have a law it will completely eliminate criminal behavior. That does not, at all, mean you just throw up your hands and hope you can deal with criminal behavior "socially," whatever that means. If anything, THAT would be Shangri la. We have laws that place certain restrictions on guns, they are clearly insufficient. That's the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoB2011 Posted March 22, 2018 Report Share Posted March 22, 2018 33 minutes ago, rico said: How many did McVeigh kill? We've been over this, they made regulatory changes after OKC Bombing. That's the whole freaking point; lots of people die, we make it harder to kill people that way then you end up with 2 dead instead of 168. What are you not grasping about that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoB2011 Posted March 22, 2018 Report Share Posted March 22, 2018 43 minutes ago, rico said: My point is just what you mentioned. People that want to create mayhem will....no matter what laws are in place. Lone bomber=lone shooter. Just didn't get the job done right. This is no "Shangrila". The issue needs to be dealt with socially. That is where the problem lies. Society changes? Humbug. We just have done a piss poor job in the house and in the schools to recognize potential problems. This issue is not a political thing. But yet people want to make it into one. Gun control will not solve the problem.......but yet some think it will. I mean, gun control solved it in every other developed country but I'll play the social game. What social changes do we need to make? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrflynn03 Posted March 22, 2018 Report Share Posted March 22, 2018 Regarding the bombs vs guns. What about the psychological component? Texas bomber, Unabomber targeted random people. But this is rare. McVeigh held a grievance against the US govt because of Waco and ruby ridge. His target wasnt necessarily the people but the system. So he bombed a federal building. Mass shooters typically target those who are the source of their rage. Its personal. Columbine shooters tried to use propane bombs. So maybe mass killing in general is more about it being personal than random. And the most effective tools to carry out their plans are chosen based on that premise? Im not arguing a position, just wondering why people choose to kill a bunch of people. They should pick this parkland shooters brain apart along with the Aurara kid. Its rare to get them alive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rico Posted March 23, 2018 Report Share Posted March 23, 2018 5 hours ago, Hoosierhoopster said: Rico man I just don't know how to engage you on this topic. You're just saying, as I understand, because people will do bad things no matter what laws are in place, we shouldn't do anything with laws and instead try to address it "socially." But Rico, laws are there to limit and reduce criminal behavior. No one thinks that because you have a law it will completely eliminate criminal behavior. That does not, at all, mean you just throw up your hands and hope you can deal with criminal behavior "socially," whatever that means. If anything, THAT would be Shangri la. We have laws that place certain restrictions on guns, they are clearly insufficient. That's the point. Listen, you can preach to me all day. Laws only apply to law abiding citizens. You think laws curb criminal activity? Perhaps for the honest person. Evil people will do as they want and find a way to do it. I don't know what is so difficult to grasp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoB2011 Posted March 23, 2018 Report Share Posted March 23, 2018 5 minutes ago, rico said: Listen, you can preach to me all day. Laws only apply to law abiding citizens. You think laws curb criminal activity? Perhaps for the honest person. Evil people will do as they want and find a way to do it. I don't know what is so difficult to grasp. You don't think laws, rules and regulations deter people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rico Posted March 23, 2018 Report Share Posted March 23, 2018 57 minutes ago, KoB2011 said: You don't think laws, rules and regulations deter people? Do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoB2011 Posted March 23, 2018 Report Share Posted March 23, 2018 8 minutes ago, rico said: Do you? They absolutely do. Doesn't mean everyone is impacted by laws, regulations and social norms but to deny that some are would be a blatant disregard for facts. If putting more regulations in place netted one single life saved, would that be worth it in your mind? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rico Posted March 23, 2018 Report Share Posted March 23, 2018 3 minutes ago, KoB2011 said: They absolutely do. Doesn't mean everyone is impacted by laws, regulations and social norms but to deny that some are would be a blatant disregard for facts. If putting more regulations in place netted one single life saved, would that be worth it in your mind? Did you speed today? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoB2011 Posted March 23, 2018 Report Share Posted March 23, 2018 11 minutes ago, rico said: Did you speed today? Speeding isn't a criminal offense; it isn't an applicable comparison. I'll ask again, if regulation nets one life saved is that worth it to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rico Posted March 23, 2018 Report Share Posted March 23, 2018 3 minutes ago, KoB2011 said: Speeding isn't a criminal offense; it isn't an applicable comparison. I'll ask again, if regulation nets one life saved is that worth it to you? Hmmmmm, what is good for the goose ain't good for the gander? Gotcha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoB2011 Posted March 23, 2018 Report Share Posted March 23, 2018 7 minutes ago, rico said: Hmmmmm, what is good for the goose ain't good for the gander? Gotcha I'm not really sure what you mean. Are you upset because I pointed out comparing speeding doesn't fly because it isn't criminal or because you don't understand that netting one life saved means one less person dies than if no laws were changed? I'll make it really clear; if more regulation means one less person dies than the total (so whatever amount more people die because they can't protect themselves, bombs, knives, etc is one less than the number of people don't die because of stricter gun laws....that's what net means) would have been without regulation changes, is that worth it to you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rico Posted March 23, 2018 Report Share Posted March 23, 2018 10 hours ago, KoB2011 said: I'm not really sure what you mean. Are you upset because I pointed out comparing speeding doesn't fly because it isn't criminal or because you don't understand that netting one life saved means one less person dies than if no laws were changed? I'll make it really clear; if more regulation means one less person dies than the total (so whatever amount more people die because they can't protect themselves, bombs, knives, etc is one less than the number of people don't die because of stricter gun laws....that's what net means) would have been without regulation changes, is that worth it to you? Speeding isn't a criminal offense? Better check your state statutes. You are just anti-gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KoB2011 Posted March 23, 2018 Report Share Posted March 23, 2018 35 minutes ago, rico said: Speeding isn't a criminal offense? Better check your state statutes. You are just anti-gun. No, it's not a criminal offense to speed. Are you being serious right now? Is saving a net of one life worth gun reform? I assume the answer is no since you refuse to answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.