OOTB's Political Thread . ..
- Thread starter BillyL
- Start date
So profound. So let's just give up of working to fix something. It's a good thing we didn't have you deciding on if we should cure diseases...or if we should write some kind of declaration to solve our problems with the British, or hell if when we're cold if we should try to rub two sticks together to make us warm. Nah, f it, problem wins and we die.
By the way, Stalin would agree with you:
"Death is the solution to all problems. No man = no problem."
If you think I’m freaking out then you read things weirdly. Spirited? I’m sitting at a desk typing.
If you think I care enough to get any type of emotion about things on a message board or social media then you’re wrong. I forget about this site the second I click on another tab or if something even incredibly minimal catches my attention at work. This site has zero impact on my emotions.
Edit: OOTB has no impact. Basketball recruiting gives me heartburn.
lol, destroying people’s liberties?...i’m not taking anything away from you or anyone else.
Then how about we actually make it more difficult.
My point is we certainly haven’t exhausted all (or even most) of the possible solutions to the problem of innocent people dying in mass shootings.
Because most of these shooters would have met those requirements to get a gun.
ETA: It's also pretty easy to get these on the black market. There are more guns than people in this country.
Sounds good to me. You want to give me a solution that would work? I've asked before, but no one actually answers me.
I have plenty to try (don't know if something works until you try it obviously) but this is a board that is made up of mostly southern white men and it will not go over well. So I'll pass on that.
That's a nice cop out. If you don't want to discuss it with the other southern white males, then ignore them and we can have a discussion. It sounds like you don't really have any ideas though.
If I say I want to take away their guns in any way, shape, or form then I'm going to have that little red button in the top right say 800 and don't really feel like debating it with 800 people.
It's less of a cop out and more of a don't feel like going down a rabbit hole on a message board.
Then just ignore the little red button and the people you don't want to debate with. I've checked with the board of directors for rivals and they have confirmed that there is no rule stating you have to respond to every person. If you don't know what could be done, that's fine. Just don't say that you do, then turn around and say you don't want to talk about it. You're going to get called out for that cop out every time.
Not caring about what's on a message board vs. not caring about it happening in real life are very different to me. They may be one and the same to you and your life, but to me they are not.
Sounds a little Tom Cruise Scientologisty to me there.
We disagree heavily that you can call a problem unsolvable when you haven't tried many of the solutions.
Make fun of me all you want, again, don't care.
Thanks for sharing.
when i owned and was running my vending route several years ago, i was sitting a stop light and a teenager walked up to my drivers side window with a knife, quietly told me to give him the cash bags ..i slowly raised my 9mm up where he could see it and he ran like his hair was on fire. crisis averted.
Hilarious.
You want free reign to bitch and moan about the state of things and then when someone attempts to discuss it with you, you bail on the discussion (must have clicked a new tab!)
Fine, I'll give you two:
1. Ban all assault weapons and high-capacity magazines from civilians. Five deadliest mass shootings happened using those types of weapons/ammo. There is some evidence to show this works, states with restrictions on them have a significantly lower rate of mass shootings. And hell, the guy in California (a state with restrictions) purchased it in Nevada (a state without).
2. Put a gigantic tax on bullets and make them insanely expensive. You can reuse a gun, you can't reuse a bullet. People that want to protect themselves don't need many bullets (you probably will never fire that gun once because the odds of you being robbed are quite low) and hell I just spent over $500 installing Ring security on my home and was fine paying that. I think others would be fine paying for that in bullets if that's their chosen method of safety.
Now will this work? I don't know. I'd guess it would. Now who exactly is this hurting if we institute these regulations? That's my question.
Knew this would open the can of worms I didn't want to bother with on a message board...
1. No. Any assault rifle registered to you will be collected. If you bought it in the last (X) years and claim you no longer have it, you will be fined. If you're caught with one, you're arrested.
2. At $100 per bullet, you'd need a hell of a lot more than $500 for a mass shooting. To the people who own ranges to shoot for sport, there would have to be laws, licenses, checks, etc. done to ensure that you're not doing anything illegal with the bullets (like distributing them to the public).
You realize legislation usually has hundreds of pages of rules and other little nuances here that you're going to continue to bring up I'm sure. Not going through them all. It's not a cop out, it's that I'm literally not arguing every single instance where this could effect 5 people negatively.
There were my 2.
We've talked about the assault weapons ban before and I'm ok with that as long as it's not some broadly defined definition of an assault weapon. I'm also ok with getting rid of high-capacity mags. That being said, don't expect that to make a difference because there are multiple studies showing the assault weapon ban that was in place during the 90s actually didn't make a big impact on gun violence. I'm also wondering if you are confusing assault weapons with "assault like" weapons. For instance, the weapons that were used in these recent shootings weren't assault weapons. What you are proposing wouldn't have stopped those shootings.
This is an interesting idea and something I've never thought about. You can actually reuse a bullet. There are plenty of people who make their own bullets. I wonder if it would be right to punish people who hunt with a tax like that though. My guess is they are the ones who buy the most bullets. And if someone is planning to go out and commit mass murder would they really be worried about the cost of a bullet knowing that they were either going to die or get arrested? Like I said it's an interesting idea, but I just don't see it making a big impact.
The dude in Vegas used 22 AR's. Orlando was a SIG MCX. Sandy Hook was a XM-15. All of these types of weapons should be banned.
I think it's worth a shot. We can sit here all day and say "oh good luck there" or "that may not work". Anything I say you guys are going to shoot down no matter how logical because there will always be instances where it's not perfect. So that's why to me this is a waste of time on this message board. It's not perfect. No legislation on this will be. Will it be better? Can't hurt to find out.
Ya know, because one idiot tried to blow up a plane with a shoe bomb, now all of us have to remove our shoes at the airport and travel with teeny bottles of shampoo and toothpaste. So why the hell can't we at least attempt to make some changes, when these mass shootings are becoming all too common?
I'm not gonna pretend to know all the answers, but I think it starts with deeper analysis of who is committing these acts and where/how they are getting their weapons. Along with that, more thorough background checks, and better communication between local and federal law enforcement agencies would help.
I'm not gonna pretend to know all the answers, but I think it starts with deeper analysis of who is committing these acts and where/how they are getting their weapons. Along with that, more thorough background checks, and better communication between local and federal law enforcement agencies would help.
I've actually agreed with you on this more than I've disagreed. We are both ok with background checks, banning assault weapons, banning high capacity mags and increasing the age limit. Don't lump me in with people who are going to disagree with you no matter what. The only real difference we've had is that I don't think any of it will make a difference and you think it might.
I'm really not trying to sound like an ass, but if it's such a waste of time why did you even jump into the conversation to begin with? Just say your prayers are with the victims and drop out of the conversation.
Sure in some situations, but with the specific example you pointed out there are some obvious problems that could be fixed. Maybe you exempt hunters from the list. Or maybe you could exempt certain types of bullets. Those are worthy of debate, but you want to get all defensive and run away from the conversation.
Using a shotgun with an extended tube would make more sense to do maximum damage. You wouldn't miss as much and multiple people would be hit with each shot. Want to ban shotguns too? And they are also semiautomatic.
That's an interesting comparison that I don't think I've heard before. I'm not sure it's the best comparison though since it was just a one off attempt to use a shoe and it didn't work. Does taking off your shoes really prevent an attack? Not sure if it does or doesn't. I guess it's one of those things we won't ever know for sure. It's also different because you can put your shoes back on. Nothing is taken away from you. It gives you something to think about though.
You're right, that was more directed at people laughing at the ideas I've come up with.
I actually think just the airline security in general is a great comparison and one that I also didn't think about.
In 1970, you didn't even need ID to get on a flight and just 0.5% of passengers were ever screened at any point.
It took 8 separate successful bombs on airplanes until the FAA made universal screening a rule in 1974. Then obviously after 9/11 we made changes that have made all of us safer, it's been 10 years (the longest time since the first airline related tragedy) since an act of terrorism happened on an airplane.
What if in 1974 we said, nah, we're taking people's liberties away if we search them (and for the record, they are).
Our liberties in line at the TSA are gone. We're safer. Does it suck? Kinda. But the alternative is much worse. Not sure why we can't apply similar logic to guns.
This conversation on this board - and nationally in media, Twitter, etc. seems to be almost entirely in the "gun supply" realm.
FWIW - believe it is virtually impossible to ban, limit sales, buy-back,etc. control the supply of the guns used in most mass shootings, to a point that will ever measurable reduce these mass shootings' death toll.
As 0910 stated, "assault weapons ban has already been tried / tested in 90's - with absolutely zero impact. Why would pretending you can limit the gun supply now magically work, and have an impact this time, to the people who want to carry out these vile acts and obviously can still very easily get the weapons if they want badly enough to carry out the shooting?
What makes the problem nearly unsolvable (to use Terror Beard's term) - is that something has changed in the psyche, hearts, minds of these killers. And how do you unwind, solve, heal, this black, dark sickness in so many pockets across America?
There were just as many of every type of gun 30+ years ago, but we saw few if any mass shootings then. Why is that?
I wish we would at least try to give more emphasis on identifying and helping these sick people, before they carry out their acts. This surely can include stripping their access to any weapons, once they are clearly identified as mentally deranged. (I get that it's a tricky slippery slope regarding who is mentally sick, deranged).
So many of these killers use heavy (overprescribed) doses of psychotropic drugs. I'm not for banning this or that drug, and the drug war is futile....but if we can try to detect this sort of drug abuse, that might be an indicator.
Also - in many instances, persons around the shooters (classmates, coworkers, family, friends) say they knew this guy was a threat because he posted a hit list of people he wanted to kill, etc. WTAF?! What does it take to raise a "red flag" to local law enforcement to give this nutjob a visit?
Kicking him out of school or firing him is not enough. What people post or say should matter, and the person should be taken in for psych assessment, and analyze his comments, actions, meds, until they figure out if the guy is a real threat. It should be easier for people to report someone they think is a legit threat, will full protections and anonymity for the person reporting the nutjob.
My understanding is local law enforcement generally backed up with 100's of these types of cases though. Maybe more funding and more focus on this, vs. trying to chase down and legislate out everyone's "assault rifle".
BTW - I haven't hear anyone clearly be able to define what an assault rifle is. Or to the extent they can, those "assault rifles" are already banned. No fully automatic rifle is legal to purchase - and hasn't been for many years. "AR" in AR-15 doesn't stand for assault rifle or automatic rifle. AR-15's are about the most popular self defense rifle in America, with many thousands owned by the public.
FWIW - believe it is virtually impossible to ban, limit sales, buy-back,etc. control the supply of the guns used in most mass shootings, to a point that will ever measurable reduce these mass shootings' death toll.
As 0910 stated, "assault weapons ban has already been tried / tested in 90's - with absolutely zero impact. Why would pretending you can limit the gun supply now magically work, and have an impact this time, to the people who want to carry out these vile acts and obviously can still very easily get the weapons if they want badly enough to carry out the shooting?
What makes the problem nearly unsolvable (to use Terror Beard's term) - is that something has changed in the psyche, hearts, minds of these killers. And how do you unwind, solve, heal, this black, dark sickness in so many pockets across America?
There were just as many of every type of gun 30+ years ago, but we saw few if any mass shootings then. Why is that?
I wish we would at least try to give more emphasis on identifying and helping these sick people, before they carry out their acts. This surely can include stripping their access to any weapons, once they are clearly identified as mentally deranged. (I get that it's a tricky slippery slope regarding who is mentally sick, deranged).
So many of these killers use heavy (overprescribed) doses of psychotropic drugs. I'm not for banning this or that drug, and the drug war is futile....but if we can try to detect this sort of drug abuse, that might be an indicator.
Also - in many instances, persons around the shooters (classmates, coworkers, family, friends) say they knew this guy was a threat because he posted a hit list of people he wanted to kill, etc. WTAF?! What does it take to raise a "red flag" to local law enforcement to give this nutjob a visit?
Kicking him out of school or firing him is not enough. What people post or say should matter, and the person should be taken in for psych assessment, and analyze his comments, actions, meds, until they figure out if the guy is a real threat. It should be easier for people to report someone they think is a legit threat, will full protections and anonymity for the person reporting the nutjob.
My understanding is local law enforcement generally backed up with 100's of these types of cases though. Maybe more funding and more focus on this, vs. trying to chase down and legislate out everyone's "assault rifle".
BTW - I haven't hear anyone clearly be able to define what an assault rifle is. Or to the extent they can, those "assault rifles" are already banned. No fully automatic rifle is legal to purchase - and hasn't been for many years. "AR" in AR-15 doesn't stand for assault rifle or automatic rifle. AR-15's are about the most popular self defense rifle in America, with many thousands owned by the public.
Those are fair examples and I'm not necessarily saying it's a bad comparison, just maybe not the best comparison. The difference I would point out is that nothing was physically taken away from you. Being patted down or going through a metal detector isn't directly comparable to having something you own (a gun) taken away.
Maybe a driver's license is a better comparison. If you don't meet certain conditions for a driver's license then you get your license taken away. I'm not sure what type of conditions you could put on owning a gun that would be like getting a driver's license though. Maybe you could have to take an annual training course and/or have an annual background check instead of just one.
I only stated that since it was a bit extreme but it seems like it didn't take much for that change to happen.
And for the record, I'm not in the camp that wants anyone to have their guns taken away. I've never owned a gun, and most likely never will.
I like the idea of training, maybe a test as well, similar to getting a license.
Hey, if someone has multiple DUI's, I sure don't want them behind the wheel. Likewise if someone has a history of violence*, I'd prefer they aren't able to legally purchase a gun.
* "A History of Violence" is a damn good movie, BTW
The airline changes are a pretty good example - but also are an example where many of the changes are window dressing (ie- body searching kids and old ladies at least as often as the people meeting the demographics of basically all plane bombings - people are afraid to "profile" people who most closely fit the characteristics of past bombings).
Also - it is quite alarming to me - the statistics on how inept the new TSA policies have been at stopping weapons, bombs from getting on to planes. When testing the TSA, tests resulted in about 80% of planted weapons making it through TSA line.....
.....and the results were even worse for detecting weapons/bombs coming on planes through the food services on planes. To a point where there is basically zero screening of food service packages at all.
My point is not that we should do away with these screenings for air travel. My point is the persons who want to carry out the evil acts are many years out in front of the current airline screening (or gun banning) policies. The efforts need to be focused much more on the people carrying out the acts (including profiling compared to past criminal acts), and not put all our hopes in detecting or banning this or that weapon.
While I agree that TSA is a nightmare with their screenings, etc...but...the data would show we're much more safe now then we were.
There hasn't been a hijacking/bomb/airline act of terrorism since 2009. Again, that's the longest span since the first guy blew up a plane in the 50s. Coincidence that since we've beefed up security (albeit with room for massive improvement) that we've had this record streak of no terror? I say no.
No law against guns is going to be perfect. My point is that if it saves lives but opens some inconveniences, is it worth it like it is in airports? Yes.
Now we've got to find the common ground. My issue is those who just say "no, don't touch my guns or my gun liberty no matter what". Or the "problem can't be solved".
Just simply not true.
i'm fine with bans on high capacity mags/weapons. a single barrel 12 gauge is enough to stop any home invasion (except in the movies) .. but it wont let you mow down 8 people in 15 seconds.
what i do NOT want removed is my right to conceal carry. it saved my life (potentially, dont know how it would have turned out) a few years ago and i've appreciated that right even more since then.
what i do NOT want removed is my right to conceal carry. it saved my life (potentially, dont know how it would have turned out) a few years ago and i've appreciated that right even more since then.
That'd be great. Or we can just come up with cockamamie ideas like:
Rly? This will have the worst outcome. The guy who wants to go shoot some rounds at the range will be priced out (because we all know these "checks" won't do jack in terms of sniffing out anything illegal). The guy who is planning on shooting 30 people before killing himself won't hesitate to throw $10K of bullets (100 bullets, lol) on a credit card he's never gonna have to pay off.
We certainly haven't. We can just ban 3 or more people from ever being in the same vicinity. That'll be sure to prevent it.
Look, I want these shootings to stop as much as anyone - but we should do stuff that works. Unfortunately I don't have any bright ideas of my own, but some of these things people think will move the needle are head scratching.
lets not forget that the majority of gun violence victims are the result of black-on-black violence and gang violence ... and that is primarily with handgun, not automatic/assault weapons. funny how the anti gun-rights crowd doesn't get riled up until a white person shoots a dozen people in public.
Actually the majority of gun violence victims are from people commiting suicide. It's the largest by a wide margin.
an estimated 400 million guns which is absurd.
again, start with something just as a beginning point, just like everything else that has been created.
but hey, asshole mcconnell is recovering from a broken shoulder, so he’s powerless at the moment.
