KY school shooting

[fredtoast]

(01-24-2018, 06:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:   I also think such a memorial would be cynically twisted by gun control advocates who have already demonstrated on myriad occasions that they will not shrink from blatant falsehoods to push their agenda.

"If Obama gets elected he will outlaw all guns!"

"The founding fathers wanted a militia in order to fight against our own government"

"There is no market for "smart gun" technology.  People don't want it."

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-25-2018, 11:36 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Holding people responsible for killing someone with a car is the reason we have laws that require every driver to be trained and hold a license and every car to be registered to an owner who could be held responsible.

So why do you oppose laws that would require every gun owner to be trained and licensed and have every gun registered to an owner?

Driving a car isn't a constitutional right, is it?

Quote:Even you admit that a large portion of gun crimes are committed by people who had someone else gun.  So doesn't it make sense to make gun owners be more responsible with their guns.

 
No, I think we should increase sentences for the criminals who steal them.

Quote:If all "lawful" gun owners are so responsible then how do these guns get in other peoples hands without ever being reported stolen?

How do you know they weren't reported?

(01-25-2018, 11:42 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Claims "people killed by firearms" equals "people murdered by firearms".

Then accuses others of "spin".

Disingenuous must be in your DNA.  Is a person who hangs themselves killed by a rope?  Is a person who intentionally overdoses on pills killed by the pill?  Or, is a person who kills themselves killed by themselves?  

Lumping suicides in with "gun violence" which is the term they use, and you conspicuously did not, is a blatant attempt to inflate the number of homicides in this country.  It's a lie, and it's a lie that's told intentionally.  

[*Nately120*]

(01-25-2018, 02:31 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Those are two separate outcomes though.  Is an inner city shooting that kills five but generates no outside sympathy not worthy of consideration?  I know this seems contradictory, and it is, just for you, not me.


The vast majority of homicides committed with a firearm are criminals killing other criminals.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/27/new-evidence-confirms-what-gun-rights-advocates-have-been-saying-for-a-long-time-about-crime/?utm_term=.82ef1d5cf8be

The leading requirement for my honoring of those slain in the name of freedom is the randomness of the shooting, not the amount of sympathy given.  The simple concept of gang violence is that the participants are aware they are at risk, they have allegiances and labels that make them known allies and enemies, and that the fighting/shooting is done in order to protect territory/control/money etc.  These aren't random happenings and are far too systematic to fall under my criteria.  Side note, I find it interesting the fringe that doesn't understand systematic gang violence also proudly states if they see someone on their property they'll gladly open fire.  We don't call 911!  BANG, yer dead!  What's the difference?  You have to show people they can't infringe on your territory without facing consequence, right?

If I join the Sharks and I grab my gun and we go to war with the Jets I am more complicit in the action of shooting/being shot than if I work at the desk of a hospital and someone comes in and screams about baby parts and shoots me, or if I'm attending a college where some guy goes postal and so on and so forth, or if I'm going to high school, or at a concert and so on.  Doing things and being in places where a reasonable person could expect not to be shot and killed by a stranger for any reason.

As for criminals killing criminals, I bring that up because I used to live in Chicago and people have used the gang violence numbers to assure me that I was in constant danger, gun control doesn't work, and that my daily commute from Oak Park into the city was like living in a war zone. 

(01-24-2018, 06:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I also think such a memorial would be cynically twisted by gun control advocates who have already demonstrated on myriad occasions that they will not shrink from blatant falsehoods to push their agenda.

And Memorial Day and other monuments to honor those slain in combat can be cynically twisted into some sort of "let's stop going to war and getting people killed" sentiment.  So we can't honor people, lest some use their sacrifices to push their agenda?  Unfair.

[fredtoast]

(01-25-2018, 12:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: How do you know they weren't reported?

Because of the study you posted a link to.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-25-2018, 12:00 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Thanks for this link.  More info from this study.

62% of gunowners who had their gun end up in the hands of a criminal do not know how they lost possession of the gun.  30% of the guns were reported stolen but over half of those were never reported stolen until the police recovered them and asked the owner.

Sure, and there's a lot of reasons for this that don't include the owner refusing to report their firearm as stolen.  Most gun owners own one or two guns, a hand gun for protection and possibly a long gun.  Most of them never go to the range after the first time they take their new gun there to practice.  They put it away and hope they never have to use it.  Not sure what point you're trying to make here other than most gun owners don't use their gun very often.

Quote:thius study also highlighted the fact that half of gun dealers are willing to participate in a "straw" purchase where they know the gun is for someone other than the purchaser

Which is totally illegal and should be prosecuted to the extent of the law.

Quote:In fact this entire study supports my position that since firearms are so deadly we need the ability to track them and determine their ownership.

Maybe you should actually read what you link instead of just taking one small nugget out of context in a lame attempt to spin it in your favor.

Maybe you should try and post any link instead of spouting your ill informed opinion.  I'd be all for a gun registry, as long as it was accompanied by a federal law that forbid banning fire arms based on features or banning certain classes of firearms that are not already covered by federal law.  In short, I have no problem with a registry as long as it is patently impossible to ever use it to track down and confiscate legally purchased firearms.

(01-25-2018, 12:03 PM)fredtoast Wrote: "If Obama gets elected he will outlaw all guns!"

"The founding fathers wanted a militia in order to fight against our own government"

"There is no market for "smart gun" technology.  People don't want it."

For those of us who are discerning and pay attention it is startlingly obvious how much you and your ilk indulge in insane levels of hyperbole.  You engage in it the most when you have no fact based argument to shore up your position.  As for "smart gun" research, blame the law in New Jersey for why people don't want them.  There's also the fact that adding another mechanism to a firearm, especially a brand new and untested one, significantly adds to the chance the firearm will fail to operate properly when used.  While firearm owners hope never to have to use their firearms in a life and death situation they fear the firearm not working if such a situation occurs even more.


In regards to the NJ law.

https://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2014/06/24/325178305/a-new-jersey-law-thats-kept-smart-guns-off-shelves-nationwide

Quote:Basically, the Childproof Handgun Law of 2002 says that once "personalized handguns are available" anywhere in the country, all handguns sold in New Jersey must be smart guns within 30 months.

 and 

Quote:"It actually doesn't matter if the gun has been sold," says David Kopel, a policy analyst at the Cato Institute. "If there's just one available for sale anywhere in the United States, then that triggers the handgun ban. So who would want to sell a smart gun knowing that, by doing so, they'd be imposing a handgun ban on New Jersey?"

As usual, anti-gun legislation, written by peope with zero firearms knowledge, actually hurts their own ca

[fredtoast]

(01-25-2018, 12:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Driving a car isn't a constitutional right, is it?

Classic red herring.

Or are you really going to argue that we can not restrict gun access to convicted criminals and mentally insane people?

[fredtoast]

(01-25-2018, 12:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, I think we should increase sentences for the criminals who steal them.

What about the ones that were not stolen.  What about people who give or sell their guns to total strangers or people that they know will probably use them for a crime?

[fredtoast]

(01-25-2018, 12:30 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not sure what point you're trying to make here other than most gun owners don't use their gun very often.

That is what happens when you quote a study without reading the purpose or conclusion of that study.

The point is that since firearms are a big public safety issue it is important to be able to track the access of guns.

I am not going to retype the entire study here.  You posted the link.  Go read it for yourself.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-25-2018, 12:31 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Classic red herring.

Does "red herring" mean fact based argument?  If not I don't think you're using the term correctly.

Quote:Or are you really going to argue that we can not restrict gun access to convicted criminals and mentally insane people?

Ahh, here's a chance to use the term red herring appropriately.  Please point us in the direction in which this argument was made.  Let me ask you this counselor, do people on probation or parole frequently lose their constitutional rights regarding search and seizure?

[*Nately120*]

(01-25-2018, 12:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Ahh, here's a chance to use the term red herring appropriately.  Please point us in the direction in which this argument was made.  Let me ask you this counselor, do people on probation or parole frequently lose their constitutional rights regarding search and seizure?

I'll play devil's advocate here and ask why criminals, mentally ill people, and even people under the age of 18 shouldn't be allowed the right to defend themselves under the 2nd amendment.  As it's been pointed out before, the mentally ill and criminals are more likely to be the victims of crimes, and I think we've seen enough school shootings to argue that it isn't fair to disarm the law-abiding students since the kids who bring guns to school are breaking the law anyways.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-25-2018, 12:35 PM)fredtoast Wrote: What about the ones that were not stolen.  What about people who give or sell their guns to total strangers or people that they know will probably use them for a crime?

First off, kindly use the multi-quote function and stop post whoring.  As to your question, did they break the law?  If so they should be prosecuted.

(01-25-2018, 12:38 PM)fredtoast Wrote: That is what happens when you quote a study without reading the purpose or conclusion of that study.

You mean actually using facts from a study to bolster your argument?  I can see how this is a foreign concept to you.  You've done nothing to refute my points, you've just moved on to different topics.

Quote:The point is that since firearms are a big public safety issue it is important to be able to track the access of guns.

I already gave you the terms that gun owners would accept for such a registry.  Here's the thing, gun owners don't trust people like you to not abuse any law they enact regarding fire arms.  You have zero credibility on this issue and one need look no further than CA to see why.

Quote:I am not going to retype the entire study here.  You posted the link.  Go read it for yourself.

I did, when I used it to make a fact based argument for my position.  I've also refuted your counter-argument that you created by using the study.  Come up with something new or stop wasting our time.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-25-2018, 12:41 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I'll play devil's advocate here and ask why criminals, mentally ill people, and even people under the age of 18 shouldn't be allowed the right to defend themselves under the 2nd amendment.

Criminals can, and do, lose certain Constitutional rights as a result of their criminal convictions.  Firearms ownership is not the only example.  As for minors, they don't have full rights because they are not legally adults.  They, by law, have to attend school and another party, most often the biological parent, is legally responsible for them.  As for the mentally ill, they lose rights in a similar way, because they are not mentally capable of functioning as an adult.

Quote:  As it's been pointed out before, the mentally ill and criminals are more likely to be the victims of crimes, and I think we've seen enough school shootings to argue that it isn't fair to disarm the law-abiding students since the kids who bring guns to school are breaking the law anyways.

All of which I've addressed above.

[fredtoast]

(01-25-2018, 12:30 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:   As for "smart gun" research, blame the law in New Jersey for why people don't want them.

Actually a large majority of people do want them.  It is just the NRA and gun dealers who don't.

More spin.

[fredtoast]

(01-25-2018, 12:47 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:   As for the mentally ill, they lose rights in a similar way, because they are not mentally capable of functioning as an adult.

Wrong.  Mentally ill people do not lose any Constitutional rights unless there is a public safety issue.  Are you really going to argue that mentally ill people are not entitled to due process under the law if you arrest them?

I guess I used a bad example.  Freedom of speech is restricted in many ways.  You can't lie to a police officer. You can't incite violence.  There are many ways that all of our constitutional rights can be limited to protect public safety.  The 2nd Ammendment is not different.

Lamest Red Herring argument ever.

[*Nately120*]

(01-25-2018, 12:47 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Criminals can, and do, lose certain Constitutional rights as a result of their criminal convictions.  Firearms ownership is not the only example.  As for minors, they don't have full rights because they are not legally adults.  They, by law, have to attend school and another party, most often the biological parent, is legally responsible for them.  As for the mentally ill, they lose rights in a similar way, because they are not mentally capable of functioning as an adult.

Maybe if more high school kids had guns there would be less high school shootings, is all.  You can't depend on the police getting there in time, is all I'm saying.  Why are we disarming law-abiding minors and preventing them from defending themselves from colleagues who break the law and bring firearms to school with the purpose of offense, not defense?

[fredtoast]

(01-25-2018, 12:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  I can see how this is a foreign concept to you.  You've done nothing to refute my points, you've just moved on to different topics.


 I've also refuted your counter-argument that you created by using the study.  Come up with something new or stop wasting our time.

Let me re-cap.

Your "point" seemed to be that we don't need the exact same laws for guns that we have for cars because guns are not a dangerous public safety issue.

Then to support this claim you post a link to a study that is based on the principle that guns are a a dangerous public safety issue.

I don't have time to play word games, so if we need to start over please state exactly what your "point" is.  I will be glad to address it directly with facts.  I just need to know exactly what it is.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-25-2018, 12:58 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Wrong.  Mentally ill people do not lose any Constitutional rights unless there is a public safety issue.  Are you really going to argue that mentally ill people are not entitled to due process under the law if you arrest them?

Wait, is due process the only Constitutional right?

Quote:I guess I used a bad example.  Freedom of speech is restricted in many ways.  You can't lie to a police officer. You can't incite violence.  There are many ways that all of our constitutional rights can be limited to protect public safety.  The 2nd Ammendment is not different.

Yes you did, no one was surprised.  No one is arguing that there aren't restrictions on the 2nd amendment, we're arguing the scope of said restrictions.

Quote:Lamest Red Herring argument ever.

Not sure what you're trying to address here.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-25-2018, 01:02 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Maybe if more high school kids had guns there would be less high school shootings, is all.  You can't depend on the police getting there in time, is all I'm saying.  Why are we disarming law-abiding minors and preventing them from defending themselves from colleagues who break the law and bring firearms to school with the purpose of offense, not defense?

Facetious arguments don't really deserve to be addressed.  If you're not interested in a real discussion on the issue then do us all a favor and don't post about it.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-25-2018, 01:05 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Let me re-cap.

Your "point" seemed to be that we don't need the exact same laws for guns that we have for cars because guns are not a dangerous public safety issue.

Nope.  The point is that gun ownership is a constitutional right, driving a car is not.

Quote:Then to support this claim you post a link to a study that is based on the principle that guns are a a dangerous public safety issue.

Gun ownership is a public safety issue.  It's also a constitutional right.  Attempts to address the public safety issue must account for the right to own firearms guaranteed by our Constitution.

Quote:I don't have time to play word games, so if we need to start over please state exactly what your "point" is.  I will be glad to address it directly with facts.  I just need to know exactly what it is.

Sure, go back to the post in which I cited actual sources and facts and actually address them.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

I'll actually do you a favor and summarize here.

Most gun violence is perpetrated by hard core criminal recidivists. The study you tried to use against me acknowledges that only 20% of gun related violence is committed by people who lawfully owned the gun. We can therefore easily surmise that the vast majority of gun violence could be prevented by aggressively prosecuting criminals who illegally own firearms. This is not done, and I can tell you this from first hand experience. So, instead of rushing to write new laws every time something like this happens, try the novel approach of actual enforcing the ones on the books first.