Mass shootings

[GMDino]

(03-07-2018, 10:09 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If your claim is that people like this stifle debate and discussion why would you include this story in a thread that contains actual debate and discussion?  Seems like your achieving the exact opposite of your stated intention.

I wasn't sure if it should go here for the "Remember when Obama took your guns" thread but in the end decided as it was related to a shooting vs gun confiscation I put it here.

It serves as an example of people who can't let things go due to their own self interests no matter what the reality is. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-07-2018, 10:12 AM)GMDino Wrote: I wasn't sure if it should go here for the "Remember when Obama took your guns" thread but in the end decided as it was related to a shooting vs gun confiscation I put it here.

It serves as an example of people who can't let things go due to their own self interests no matter what the reality is. 

I don't think the "revelation" that there are extremists on both sides of this, or any issue, is especially mind blowing.  So, I would kindly point out to you that posting about them in a  thread in which actual debate and discussion is occurring achieves the exact opposite of your stated intention.

[GMDino]

(03-07-2018, 10:21 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't think the "revelation" that there are extremists on both sides of this, or any issue, is especially mind blowing.  So, I would kindly point out to you that posting about them in a  thread in which actual debate and discussion is occurring achieves the exact opposite of your stated intention.

Because the thread is entitled "Mass Shootings"  not "Actual gun debate with nothing that distracts SSF".

Why are you not getting back to your discussion that I did not comment on (or to you) instead of worrying about me?  Again.

Thanks.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-07-2018, 10:26 AM)GMDino Wrote: Because the thread is entitled "Mass Shootings"  not "Actual gun debate with nothing that distracts SSF".

Why are you not getting back to your discussion that I did not comment on (or to you) instead of worrying about me?  Again.

Because I rather think it had run its course and I had nothing to add.  

Quote:Thanks.

You're welcome.  I'm always available to point out when you contradict yourself.

[GMDino]

(03-07-2018, 10:31 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Because I rather think it had run its course and I had nothing to add.  

Then why did you care what I posted? (Hint: I know why. )

(03-07-2018, 10:31 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're welcome.  I'm always available to point out when you contradict yourself.

This made no sense...but it is very early in CA so you get a pass.

Have you reached you "I have to tell him he's wrong/stupid" post limit for the day?

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(03-05-2018, 05:28 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: 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.

Well, I take Viibryd 40mg every night, and Xanax (.5mg) as needed, so that does that include me?


I think what you're getting at is maybe people on high doses of drugs like Lithium, et al.  In that case, I might agree.

[GMDino]

(03-07-2018, 10:48 AM)Wyche Wrote: Well, I take Viibryd 40mg every night, and Xanax (.5mg) as needed, so that does that include me?


I think what you're getting at is maybe people on high doses of drugs like Lithium, et al.  In that case, I might agree.

"lock him up!"  


Seriously though:  Who will get to decide what is "moderate"?  Will we trust a government agency or individual doctors or relatives or neighbors or....

We had a related but unrelated thing in a dart league I belong to.  We throw from 25 feet but have a line five feet closer for new, younger players (teens) and for anyone who is infirmed.  OR if a player need to throw from closer or he wouldn't be able to play..mostly for the older players in the league. (We had one on our team last year in his 90's!)

Some teams seem to be taking advantage to have their better players move up and increase their averages so other teams complain.

The only "rule" for using the 20 foot line is if the player "needs" it.  And since we don't play for money and it is a church league it should be on the team and players own conscience if they are cheating just to win a plastic trophy at the end of the season.

A bunch of options have been discussed over the years.  One was for a "permanent disability".  But how do you prove it?  One player had knee surgery two years ago but claims he can't throw a dart that far because his knee still swells. He can work on his roof...but he can't throw the dart.  

So do we get a doctor's excuse? 

And there are a couple guys that there is something "wrong" with them but I bet no one would diagnose them.


So when we talk about keeping guns from people, or taking guns from people, or  putting them in institutions based on mental issues...who decides?

[BmorePat87]

(03-07-2018, 10:48 AM)Wyche Wrote: Well, I take Viibryd 40mg every night, and Xanax (.5mg) as needed, so that does that include me?


I think what you're getting at is maybe people on high doses of drugs like Lithium, et al.  In that case, I might agree.

Moderate mental health issue? Check

"Cocktail" of prescriptions? Check


You're too dangerous to be out on the streets. You're too dangerous for an out patient center. You need to be in an asylum. 

[Bengalzona]

My take on the Gun Control controversy has been the same over the past few years: guns should be regulated like automobiles with licensing, training and testing requirements, but also mental health screenings. And to varying degrees across the country, there are these types of regulations.

But I may be a bit more radical than some. I think a person should be able to own whatever firearm that they want: semi-auto, full auto, .50 cal, "...phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range" (technically, not a fire arm I suppose), etc. I just believe there should be a level of increasing licensure and restriction consummate with the type of weapon. And, once again, I believe this already exists to a certain degree.

There just isn't a lot of consistency with existing regulations from place-to-place. I tend to agree with SSF that a lot of regulatory controls already exist, but they need to be gone through, amended, updated, repealed and replaced, etc. The one place where consistency in regulations could be created and enforced is the Federal government. Unfortunately, the level of distrust with the Federal government is too great. Hence, places like California will have crazy strict anti-gun laws and other places like in the Deep South will have almost none. That is our reality.

If we want some consistency and continuity with regulations, it has to come from the Fed. For that to happen, we have to show them a little trust (i.e. realizing that "they" are "us"). Some of us also have to realize that bans aren't going to work.

As for assault gun-style weapons, I don't believe they need to be banned. That said, I have no problem if a community or state wanted to limit their open carry policy on these weapons based upon the fact that they incite a certain degree of intimidation and terror among the populace.

[StLucieBengal]

(03-07-2018, 10:48 AM)WychesWarrior Wrote: Well, I take Viibryd 40mg every night, and Xanax (.5mg) as needed, so that does that include me?


I think what you're getting at is maybe people on high doses of drugs like Lithium, et al.  In that case, I might agree.

You are barely taking anything. That is not what I am taking about. Obviously I am taking about high dosages and several medications. Also I am not taking about people who take meds as needed.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-07-2018, 10:36 AM)GMDino Wrote: Then why did you care what I posted? (Hint: I know why.   )

Oh my, do tell.  I am on tenterhooks.

Quote:This made no sense...but it is very early in CA so you get a pass.

Have you reached you "I have to tell him he's wrong/stupid" post limit for the day?  

It makes perfect sense.  As for your last question, it depends how often you end up posting today.

(03-07-2018, 11:34 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: My take on the Gun Control controversy has been the same over the past few years: guns should be regulated like automobiles with licensing, training and testing requirements, but also mental health screenings. And to varying degrees across the country, there are these types of regulations.

Which, to a degree, would be reasonable.  But you have to acknowledge you're putting further restrictions on a constitutional right.  I thought the exchange between hollodero and myself unearthed an interesting parallel, that of having a license to own a gun and having to show a valid ID to be able to vote.  As he said, and I completely agree, you can't logically oppose one and be for the other.  Both add a cost, however small, to exercising a constitutional right.

Quote:But I may be a bit more radical than some. I think a person should be able to own whatever firearm that they want: semi-auto, full auto, .50 cal,  "...phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range" (technically, not a fire arm I suppose), etc. I just believe there should be a level of increasing licensure and restriction consummate with the type of weapon. And, once again, I believe this already exists to a certain degree.

  
This, also would be reasonable, to a degree.  Of course who determines what line for what weapon for what degree of restriction is going to be a huge mountain to climb.

Quote:There just isn't a lot of consistency with existing regulations from place-to-place. I tend to agree with SSF that a lot of regulatory controls already exist, but they need to be gone through, amended, updated, repealed and replaced, etc. The one place where consistency in regulations could be created and enforced is the Federal government. Unfortunately, the level of distrust with the Federal government is too great. Hence, places like California will have crazy strict anti-gun laws and other places like in the Deep South will have almost none. That is our reality.

You touch on perhaps my biggest gripe about this issue, politicians asking for more regulations when the ones in place aren't being enforced.  Both the Florida kid and the church shooter should not have been able to purchase a firearm.  If you get down to it, the Orlando shooter, with his history, should not have as well.  While I have a very hard time laying any blame at her feet, if the women he used to abuse had actually gone to the police, instead of just leaving him, he could have had a DV conviction and been a prohibited person as well.  There are so many checks and balances in the system and they fail due to human error.  The answer isn't going to be more regulations when the regulations you have in place aren't even being enforced as they should.

Quote:If we want some consistency and continuity with regulations, it has to come from the Fed. For that to happen, we have to show them a little trust (i.e. realizing that "they" are "us"). Some of us also have to realize that bans aren't going to work.

Agreed.  The patchwork nature of state to state gun laws creates nothing but confusion.  The Dems have crapped their pants over national reciprocity for concealed carry licenses, fearing everyone will fly to Utah go get a CCL.  The reality is such laws will prevent a law abiding citizen in Pennsylvania with a CCL from potentially going to prison if they accidently cross the state line into New Jersey.  Good on then governor Christy on that one, btw.

Quote:As for assault gun-style weapons, I don't believe they need to be banned. That said, I have no problem if a community or state wanted to limit their open carry policy on these weapons based upon the fact that they incite a certain degree of intimidation and terror among the populace.

You've heard me consistently rail against the concept of open carry.  It's pointless, makes people uneasy and actually achieves the reverse of its stated purpose.  Open carry is an invitation for a criminal to rob you of your firearm.  As you cannot open carry in a ready position you will most likely be unable to react to a person unexpectedly pointing a gun at your face and demanding your weapon.

[GMDino]

(03-07-2018, 11:34 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: My take on the Gun Control controversy has been the same over the past few years: guns should be regulated like automobiles with licensing, training and testing requirements, but also mental health screenings. And to varying degrees across the country, there are these types of regulations.

But I may be a bit more radical than some. I think a person should be able to own whatever firearm that they want: semi-auto, full auto, .50 cal,  "...phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range" (technically, not a fire arm I suppose), etc. I just believe there should be a level of increasing licensure and restriction consummate with the type of weapon. And, once again, I believe this already exists to a certain degree.  

There just isn't a lot of consistency with existing regulations from place-to-place. I tend to agree with SSF that a lot of regulatory controls already exist, but they need to be gone through, amended, updated, repealed and replaced, etc. The one place where consistency in regulations could be created and enforced is the Federal government. Unfortunately, the level of distrust with the Federal government is too great. Hence, places like California will have crazy strict anti-gun laws and other places like in the Deep South will have almost none. That is our reality.

If we want some consistency and continuity with regulations, it has to come from the Fed. For that to happen, we have to show them a little trust (i.e. realizing that "they" are "us"). Some of us also have to realize that bans aren't going to work.

As for assault gun-style weapons, I don't believe they need to be banned. That said, I have no problem if a community or state wanted to limit their open carry policy on these weapons based upon the fact that they incite a certain degree of intimidation and terror among the populace.

You hit upon the problem with "gun laws"...they aren't the same across the country.

The joke I heard (and used a couple times in these discussions) is that Chicago has a gun problem...it's called Indiana.

I'd be all for removing or redoing all regulations if they were replaced with common rules for everywhere in the US.  I'm sure individual states will tweak them (or try to) just like they do with speed limits and other laws.  But consistency from state to state and city to city would be a big step forward.

[fredtoast]

(03-06-2018, 12:13 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Political momentum is a real thing and don't insult us brainwashed people who can't understand correlation vs. causation by suggesting otherwise.

"Political momentum" is not a real thing.

Passing laws for gun registration in no way increases the ability to pass laws for gun confiscation.

MADD got the law changed so that .08 was the legal limit for a DUI conviction.  They wanted to lower it to .06 but they were not successful.

[fredtoast]

(03-07-2018, 10:21 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't think the "revelation" that there are extremists on both sides of this, or any issue, is especially mind blowing.

No, but there seems to be some problem in deciding who are the "extremists".

Do you think people who want to outlaw all guns are "extremists" or "main stream"?

[Belsnickel]

(03-07-2018, 01:12 PM)GMDino Wrote: You hit upon the problem with "gun laws"...they aren't the same across the country.

The joke I heard (and used a couple times in these discussions) is that Chicago has a gun problem...it's called Indiana.

I'd be all for removing or redoing all regulations if they were replaced with common rules for everywhere in the US.  I'm sure individual states will tweak them (or try to) just like they do with speed limits and other laws.  But consistency from state to state and city to city would be a big step forward.

Absolutely this. I push for things at the state level because Congress is a hot mess right now and nothing is going to get done, but this needs to happen across the country if anything is going to work. I push for Virginia laws because we are a source for many firearms used in crimes in the northeast. If we tighten things down it not only helps us, but helps the region.

This goes back to the study I look at that focused on Missouri repealing their permit-to-purchase handgun laws. They repealed them and the number of firearms used in crimes in Illinois that came from Missouri skyrocketed. So not only did Missouri increase their own firearm violence rate by about 23% in the time of the study, they also potentially increased Illinois' and others.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(03-07-2018, 11:14 AM)GMDino Wrote: "lock him up!"  


Seriously though:  Who will get to decide what is "moderate"?  Will we trust a government agency or individual doctors or relatives or neighbors or....

We had a related but unrelated thing in a dart league I belong to.  We throw from 25 feet but have a line five feet closer for new, younger players (teens) and for anyone who is infirmed.  OR if a player need to throw from closer or he wouldn't be able to play..mostly for the older players in the league. (We had one on our team last year in his 90's!)

Some teams seem to be taking advantage to have their better players move up and increase their averages so other teams complain.

The only "rule" for using the 20 foot line is if the player "needs" it.  And since we don't play for money and it is a church league it should be on the team and players own conscience if they are cheating just to win a plastic trophy at the end of the season.

A bunch of options have been discussed over the years.  One was for a "permanent disability".  But how do you prove it?  One player had knee surgery two years ago but claims he can't throw a dart that far because his knee still swells. He can work on his roof...but he can't throw the dart.  

So do we get a doctor's excuse? 

And there are a couple guys that there is something "wrong" with them but I bet no one would diagnose them.


So when we talk about keeping guns from people, or taking guns from people, or  putting them in institutions based on mental issues...who decides?

Ha!  I hear you on the rest.

I would think it would have to be a rather lengthy and CLINICAL process.  There would have to be a log of "incidences" and suicidal/homocidal tendencies in order to take it that far.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(03-07-2018, 02:08 PM)fredtoast Wrote: "Political momentum" is not a real thing.

This could not be more incorrect.  I don't even think you actually believe this.

Quote:Passing laws for gun registration in no way increases the ability to pass laws for gun confiscation.

It already did in CA.

Quote:MADD got the law changed so that .08 was the legal limit for a DUI conviction.  They wanted to lower it to .06 but they were not successful.

You mean they had the momentum to get the limit changed to .08?  I do appreciate your making my point for me, that they got what they initially wanted and then tried to get more.  They likely failed as .06 BAC is so low that a smaller person (especially a woman) who had a glass or two of wine with dinner is at risk of having their lives ruined.

(03-07-2018, 02:17 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No, but there seems to be some problem in deciding who are the "extremists".

Do you think people who want to outlaw all guns are "extremists" or "main stream"?

A person who wants to outlaw all guns is absolutely an extremist.  A person seeking to outlaw all semi-automatic weapons is unfortunately much more common.  I'd like to say that such a person is an extremist, but I don't think what I've seen on various media sources allows me to logically come to that conclusion.

[Nebuchadnezzar]

The over exaggeration in this thread is priceless, it really is good stuff, keep it up.

[Bengalzona]

(03-07-2018, 12:16 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Which, to a degree, would be reasonable.  But you have to acknowledge you're putting further restrictions on a constitutional right.  I thought the exchange between hollodero and myself unearthed an interesting parallel, that of having a license to own a gun and having to show a valid ID to be able to vote.  As he said, and I completely agree, you can't logically oppose one and be for the other.  Both add a cost, however small, to exercising a constitutional right.

In my opinion, it is a constitutional right by de facto (i.e. enough Americans believe and want it to be a right that, in effect it is). Be that as it may, there are other constitutional rights which have restrictions.

Freedom of Speech has some conditions upon it. If someone holds a BLM rally in the middle of a KKK convention, local authorities are probably going to step in and "repress" one or both groups' right to state their opinion at that particular place and time before someone gets hurt.

Similarly, Freedom of the Press can get stifled during wartime. The government generally tries to handle this with "kid gloves". But there was the famous episode in 1942 where the Chicago Tribune decided to leak secret information about how we broke Japanese codes in order to win the Battle of Midway. Uncle Sam was less than happy about that and that story got pulled schnell machen (sorry, my German grammar ain't too hot).

The list could go on. We like having these rights. But over the years there have been people who have abused these rights to criminal levels (i.e. hey infringed upon other people's rights). As a result, it has been necessary to sometimes restrict rights. The question becomes, "At what point has someone abused the rights?"

I have yet to see someone provide actual proof that voting rights have been abused enough to require I.D.s. If someone did provide actual proof that this was a widespread problem, then I think most people would see the need for this.

Gun rights are a bit different in that most of the restrictions I would find reasonable already exist in many places across the country, meaning that a lot of people have already come to the conclusion at some point that they were necessary.

Quote:This, also would be reasonable, to a degree.  Of course who determines what line for what weapon for what degree of restriction is going to be a huge mountain to climb.

A think a national classification system could be accomplished. Some differences between firearms are pretty obvious (such as the difference between a hunting rifle and M-2 Browning). But just because other classifications may be more difficult or contentious shouldn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bath water (even though that seems to be the current way of conducting politics nationally).

Quote:You touch on perhaps my biggest gripe about this issue, politicians asking for more regulations when the ones in place aren't being enforced.  Both the Florida kid and the church shooter should not have been able to purchase a firearm.  If you get down to it, the Orlando shooter, with his history, should not have as well.  While I have a very hard time laying any blame at her feet, if the women he used to abuse had actually gone to the police, instead of just leaving him, he could have had a DV conviction and been a prohibited person as well.  There are so many checks and balances in the system and they fail due to human error.  The answer isn't going to be more regulations when the regulations you have in place aren't even being enforced as they should.

Amen. I think people may be washing over these facts in the rush to take political sides on the issue. And local officials trying to avoid their own culpability and avoid responsibility aren't helping the issue.

Quote:Agreed.  The patchwork nature of state to state gun laws creates nothing but confusion.  The Dems have crapped their pants over national reciprocity for concealed carry licenses, fearing everyone will fly to Utah go get a CCL.  The reality is such laws will prevent a law abiding citizen in Pennsylvania with a CCL from potentially going to prison if they accidently cross the state line into New Jersey.  Good on then governor Christy on that one, btw.

Universal standards will fix many, but not all problems. Many is good enough for me. But that requires an agreement, which requires give-and-take, which seems to be something that people have forgotten how to do.

Quote:You've heard me consistently rail against the concept of open carry.  It's pointless, makes people uneasy and actually achieves the reverse of its stated purpose.  Open carry is an invitation for a criminal to rob you of your firearm.  As you cannot open carry in a ready position you will most likely be unable to react to a person unexpectedly pointing a gun at your face and demanding your weapon.

I've come to the conclusion that wondering if the screwball standing in line with me is packing is a better situation than actually seeing that he is packing.

But this is Arizona and open carry will probably never go away here.

[fredtoast]

(03-07-2018, 11:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It already did in CA.

No it didn't .

The fact that both happened does not prove that one caused the other .

Sorry that you can not grasp the difference between "correlation " and "causation".