Mass shootings

[fredtoast]

I've been a Bengal fan for over 40 years.

Should I be allowed to own a gun?

[*michaelsean*]

(03-02-2018, 04:40 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I've been a Bengal fan for over 40 years.

Should I be allowed to own a gun?

If you were older than 12 and chose the Bengals, then no. (I’m looking at you European Bengal fans.)

[hollodero]

(03-02-2018, 09:36 PM)michaelsean Wrote: If you were older than 12 and chose the Bengals, then no. (I’m looking at you European Bengal fans.)

Yeah we'd better have no gun. Our mental stability seems quite questionable. Also, we prove one can shoot himself in the foot without one.

[GMDino]

Now they can say they DID vote for it....before the voted against it?

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/florida-senate-ar-15-ban-republicans_us_5a9b2996e4b0479c02531df6

Quote:The Florida Senate Approved An AR-15 Ban. Then They Didn’t.
Every member who opposed the short-term prohibition on sales was Republican.



For approximately 15 minutes, the Florida state Senate appeared to back a new measure that would have prohibited the sale of AR-15s for two years. Then Republicans overturned it.

In a rare Saturday morning session, the state lawmakers considered a short-term ban on the assault-style rifle used to slaughter 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, last month. Democratic lawmakers attempted to put the gun restriction into a bill, SB 7026, that would invest money in mental health and school safety programs.

After the upper chamber debated for nearly an hour, Senate President Joe Negron ® ruled that the amendment temporarily banning the sale of AR-15s had passed in an unrecorded voice vote, the Tampa Bay Times reported.

A quarter-hour later, that ruling was overturned by a roll call vote of 21-17.

Every Senate member who voted against the amendment was Republican. Just two Republicans, state Sens. Anitere Flores and Rene Garcia, crossed party lines to support 15 Democrats in favor of the measure. It wasn’t enough.

State Sen. Kelli Stargel ® argued that offering one’s “thoughts and prayers” in response to a shooting is a more effective way of curbing gun violence because an assault weapons ban wouldn’t prevent people from using things like explosives to harm others.

“Thoughts and prayers are really the only thing that’s going to stop the evil from within the individual that is taking up their arms to do this type of massacre,” Stargel said.

In his argument against the amendment, state Sen. David Simmons ® compared not selling AR-15s to Adolf Hitler taking guns away from German citizens. The Anti-Defamation League has repeatedly blasted that kind of comparison.

“It’s offensive for anyone to manipulate the history of the Holocaust to score political points,” the Jewish civil rights organization tweeted earlier this week at U.S. Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), who had made the same argument as Simmons.

On Saturday, student activists who survived the Stoneman Douglas shooting and have taken on the National Rifle Association voiced their displeasure with Florida lawmakers on Twitter. They also had another message: They know the Republicans who voted down the amendment, and they won’t forget. 

Quote:[/url]Cameron Kasky

@cameron_kasky

Florida is not disheartened by the pathetic choices made by our lawmakers. We’re simply excited to kick them out and save our own lives. We have more hope now than ever. We have a very clear understanding of who’s with us and who’s against us. #NeverAgain #MarchForOurLives
11:37 AM - Mar 3, 2018

Quote:David Hogg

@davidhogg111

Elections are going to be fun! https://twitter.com/jaclyncorin/status/970024775392391168 …
3:41 PM - Mar 3, 2018

Following the failure of the ban, Senate members [url=https://twitter.com/DavidBegnaud/status/970026316161585153]held a moment of silence for the victims ― primarily children ― killed at the Parkland high school.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-05-2018, 10:16 AM)GMDino Wrote: Now they can say they DID vote for it....before the voted against it?

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/florida-senate-ar-15-ban-republicans_us_5a9b2996e4b0479c02531df6

Good, knee jerk legislation is almost always a horrible idea.  What will they do if some sicko goes on a rampage with an AK47?  Heads will explode!

[hollodero]

(03-05-2018, 10:16 AM)GMDino Wrote: In his argument against the amendment, state Sen. David Simmons compared not selling AR-15s to Adolf Hitler taking guns away from German citizens.

--- Wow.

[GMDino]

(03-05-2018, 10:22 AM)hollodero Wrote: --- Wow.

Yep.  That's what we deal with.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-05-2018, 10:22 AM)hollodero Wrote: --- Wow.

It's a disingenuous framing of this argument, which btw, I agree is an extreme one.  The actual argument being made is that every totalitarian government has, historically, disarmed its populace.  The reason for this is readily apparent.  I've stated numerous times, I think analogies to Nazi Germany are almost always a horrible idea.  

[hollodero]

(03-05-2018, 10:30 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's a disingenuous framing of this argument, which btw, I agree is an extreme one.

Good :)

(03-05-2018, 10:30 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The actual argument being made is that every totalitarian government has, historically, disarmed its populace.  The reason for this is readily apparent.  I've stated numerous times, I think analogies to Nazi Germany are almost always a horrible idea.  

I get the jist of the argument, sophisticated as this point was. Thing is though, nobody, at least nobody serious I heard from, even talks about "disarming the populace", no democrat I know of said anything like that (only Trump actually did, but well). One might still accuse them of hidden agendas, but at this point the argument turns really disingenuous to begin with. The awful Nazi analogue aside. [I'm sure the left is waaay worse though :) ]

Also, there's a bunch of distinctly non-totalitarian governments that have gun restrictions too. Gun restrictions do not equal totalitarism in the making.

Since you dared to quote me :), may I ask a serious question. Why is it ok to ban grenade launchers, but a full assault on people's rights to ban assault rifles? What's the difference.

[StLucieBengal]

(03-02-2018, 12:25 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Since you're confused on what constitutes a "radical" position, believing that anyone with a moderate mental illness who takes medication should be institutionalized is "radical". 

It's just complete out of line with any current research and based solely on ignorance. YOu're essentially condemning anyone who takes medicine for anxiety or depression to a life locked up in a hospital simply because you feel that their medicine makes them a threat. 

Where did I say “moderate mental illness” needs to be locked up?

I did say anyone who requires a lot of meds to function in society should be looked at. And yes if you need a lot of goof balls to function then you need to be checked out.

[StLucieBengal]

(03-05-2018, 10:16 AM)GMDino Wrote: Now they can say they DID vote for it....before the voted against it?

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/florida-senate-ar-15-ban-republicans_us_5a9b2996e4b0479c02531df6

Fantastic. Good job Florida.

[StLucieBengal]

(03-02-2018, 02:11 PM)WychesWarrior Wrote: Yeah, after heart issues at a very early age, I developed a rather severe case of anxiety.  I was in and out of ERs for the better part of 3 years with what was finally diagnosed as panic disorder.  These panic attacks are no joke.  I've gotten up and left in the 4th inning of a Reds game, left work.....it was really becoming a huge detriment to my normal life.  I finally got on a medication that has pretty much wiped out those frightening panic attacks, and I am not "buzzed" or impaired.  I feel normal again.  I have a prescription for low dose Xanax that I take as needed......if I know I'm going in a large crowd, I take one.  If I feel panic coming on (which is exceedingly rare these days), I take one.  I manage to function just fine......naturally, I'm an advocate for treating mental disorders, and if a person is a danger to themselves or others, I am for admitting them until they can get the help they need, and getting "fixed".

You do not fall anywhere close in my example.

[fredtoast]

(03-05-2018, 10:30 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It's a disingenuous framing of this argument, which btw, I agree is an extreme one.  The actual argument being made is that every totalitarian government has, historically, disarmed its populace.  The reason for this is readily apparent.  I've stated numerous times, I think analogies to Nazi Germany are almost always a horrible idea.  

And when they try to disarm our populace I will be right with you fighting against it.

You know what else every authoritarian government has done?  They have used the police and or army against the populace.  So are you saying we can not have an army or police force here in the United States?

That is why a "slippery slope" is considered a sort of LOGICAL FALLACY.  It is not a VALID argument.  It is ridiculous to oppose reasonable gun control regulations that would keep more guns out of the hands of criminals because you oppose complet gun confiscation.  THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES.  

[fredtoast]

(03-05-2018, 10:19 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:  knee jerk legislation is almost always a horrible idea.

Just like the knee jerk reaction to reasonable gun control legislation is "THEY ARE COMING FOR OUR GUNS!!!!"

[BmorePat87]

(03-05-2018, 01:58 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Where did I say “moderate mental illness” needs to be locked up?

I did say anyone who requires a lot of meds to function in society should be looked at.   And yes if you need a lot of goof balls to function then you need to be checked out.

Many people with moderate mental illnesses take daily medication. I understand you're coming at this from an ignorant misinformed position rather than a position rooted in medicine and science, so the stuff you're saying makes absolutely no sense and is frankly just asinine, but what constitutes "a lot of good balls to function" in your pseudo science pop up book?

[BmorePat87]

Seems like Florida Senate Republicans are in for some interesting elections. Very unpopular and just stupid legislation they're promoting that's at odds with what other GOP leadership in the state has been suggesting, and also just at odds with public opinions.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-05-2018, 10:52 AM)hollodero Wrote: Good :)


I get the jist of the argument, sophisticated as this point was. Thing is though, nobody, at least nobody serious I heard from, even talks about "disarming the populace", no democrat I know of said anything like that (only Trump actually did, but well). One might still accuse them of hidden agendas, but at this point the argument turns really disingenuous to begin with. The awful Nazi analogue aside. [I'm sure the left is waaay worse though :) ]

Doing so would be blatantly unconstitutional, so I would hope no federal politician would advocate such a thing.  Ironically, the Supreme Court ruling that affirmed the right to own a firearm for self defense purposes, District of Columbia v. Heller, was brought before the court because the District Of Columbia attempted to ban all handguns within its limits.  In overreaching with a gun ban they actually achieved the opposite effect.

Quote:Also, there's a bunch of distinctly non-totalitarian governments that have gun restrictions too. Gun restrictions do not equal totalitarism in the making.

No serious person says that, on its own, is convincing evidence of such.  Both lung cancer and a cold can cause a bad cough.  Having a cough, though, is not sufficient evidence that you have lung cancer.

Quote:Since you dared to quote me :), may I ask a serious question. Why is it ok to ban grenade launchers, but a full assault on people's rights to ban assault rifles? What's the difference.

You're asking for a long discussion here.  First off, I will treat your grenade launcher question as serious.  A grenade launcher is designed to fill a blast area with shrapnel.  Within that area its effects are indiscriminate.  Also, a grenade launcher is not as precise as a rifle.  Both qualities make it a poor option for self defense.  Additionally, a grenade launcher has little in common with firearms already in common use, and that have been in common use for decades.

I'll return to the idea of an "assault rifle" in a moment.  Prior to that I would point out that AR's, AK's and other magazine fed semi-automatic weapons have been in public hands for close to fifty years.  There is precedent in the public possessing them, nor were the "mass shootings" of today as big a concern.  Ironically, the homicide rate in the 60's, 70's and 80's was considerably higher than the rate now.  The crime rate has been, until recently, dropping every years since about 1992.  Within those twenty-five years the number of firearms in private possession has exploded.

Now we'll return to this question, what is an "assault rifle?  Is it a particular feature, a mix of features or the ability to accept a detachable magazine?  The traditional definition is a man portable rifle capable of selective fire.  There are very few such weapons in the hands of civilians in this country, and they have almost never been used in a criminal act.  If we allow for the features argument, what features do we use?  What makes an AR15 more deadly than an M14 or an M1 Garand?  When someone can actually answer these questions then you can actually start talking about what should, and should not, be banned.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-05-2018, 02:23 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And when they try to disarm our populace I will be right with you fighting against it.

You know what else every authoritarian government has done?  They have used the police and or army against the populace.  So are you saying we can not have an army or police force here in the United States?

See my cough equals lung cancer analogy above.

Quote:That is why a "slippery slope" is considered a sort of LOGICAL FALLACY.  It is not a VALID argument.  It is ridiculous to oppose reasonable gun control regulations that would keep more guns out of the hands of criminals because you oppose complet gun confiscation.  THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES.  

Except it's already been shown to happen in various areas of the country. You can't claim a slippery slope fallacy when actual events show the position has merit.

(03-05-2018, 02:25 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Just like the knee jerk reaction to reasonable gun control legislation is "THEY ARE COMING FOR OUR GUNS!!!!"

Yes, that's exactly what I said.

[StLucieBengal]

(03-05-2018, 04:01 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Many people with moderate mental illnesses take daily medication. I understand you're coming at this from an ignorant misinformed position rather than a position rooted in medicine and science, so the stuff you're saying makes absolutely no sense and is frankly just asinine, but what constitutes "a lot of good balls to function" in your pseudo science pop up book?

Moderate mental illness would be taking a low to moderate dose of a medication. Not high dosage and certainly not several types.

I know you are all wound up on the mental illness stuff but come on man. At least have the decency to be accurate on my position.

[fredtoast]

(03-05-2018, 05:11 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Except it's already been shown to happen in various areas of the country. You can't claim a slippery slope fallacy when actual events show the position has merit.

The "slippery slope" argument only works on people who are clueless about the difference between "correlation" and "causation".

For example, it has also been proven in almost every part of the country that most heroin addicts drank alcohol before they became addicted to heroin. 

Anywhere there were enough voters to try and enact confiscation there would have been just as many, and probably many more, who supported owner licensing and gun registration, but that does not mean licensing and registration caused the attempts at confiscation or that every place that supports licensing and registration will also support confiscation.

And that is why a "slippery slope" argument is a logical fallacy.  It does not differentiate "correlation" from "causation".