Shooter targets Republican baseball practice

Home Archive Serious Business Shooter targets Republican baseball practice
salto's avatar

salto

Senior Member

2,611 posts
Jun 22, 2017 6:34 PM
justincredible;1859970 wrote:What would you consider a viable gun control solution to prevent someone from "going postal" after a bad day?
It's a numbers thing. Owning a gun increases your chance of being killed by one.
Jun 22, 2017 6:34pm
justincredible's avatar

justincredible

Nick Mangold

32,056 posts
Jun 22, 2017 6:34 PM
salto;1859971 wrote:It's a numbers thing. Owning a gun increases your chance of being killed by one.
Owning a pool increases your chance of drowning.
Jun 22, 2017 6:34pm
salto's avatar

salto

Senior Member

2,611 posts
Jun 22, 2017 6:44 PM
justincredible;1859972 wrote:Owning a pool increases your chance of drowning.
Between you talking about swimming and Like_that comparing USA to the Middle East.....wha'?

As for a solution to prevent someone from "going postal" less control by the unempathetic party in our Government.
Jun 22, 2017 6:44pm
iclfan2's avatar

iclfan2

Reppin' the 330/216/843

6,360 posts
Jun 22, 2017 6:50 PM
salto;1859971 wrote:It's a numbers thing. Owning a gun increases your chance of being killed by one.
Or decreases it, if you're carrying


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Jun 22, 2017 6:50pm
like_that's avatar

like_that

1st Team All-PWN

26,625 posts
Jun 22, 2017 6:53 PM
salto;1859973 wrote:Between you talking about swimming and Like_that comparing USA to the Middle East.....wha'?

As for a solution to prevent someone from "going postal" less control by the unempathetic party in our Government.
I am starting to think you don't know how analogies work. :RpS_lol:

Do you think banning the AR-15 would work?
Jun 22, 2017 6:53pm
iclfan2's avatar

iclfan2

Reppin' the 330/216/843

6,360 posts
Jun 22, 2017 6:53 PM
Salto, you are a fuckig retard. Literally.
Jun 22, 2017 6:53pm
salto's avatar

salto

Senior Member

2,611 posts
Jun 22, 2017 7:34 PM
like_that;1859975 wrote:I am starting to think you don't know how analogies work. :RpS_lol:
My bad, I forgot to turn on the sarcastic font. I know what he was saying.....ffs. Just responding with stupidity. Owning a pool is not exactly comparable to owning a gun.
If you've had a bad day and decide to drown yourself, it'll take a bit more effort than pulling a trigger.



As for if banning one type of gun "would work", define work. Would more restrictions on types of weapons civilians could own lower massacres....? We're going back to that numbers game.
Personally, I think there needs more psych screening before guns are legally sold in the open market.
[FONT=&amp]
Senate Bill 199 passed in December. It lets people with concealed carry permits bring their guns onto private property regardless of the policies and wishes of the company or property owner. I'm not for this bill.


[/FONT]
iclfan2;1859976 wrote:Salto, you are a fuckig retard. Literally.
Strong rebuttal. You're like the guy who replies "Well, fuck you!" at a debate.
Jun 22, 2017 7:34pm
Q

queencitybuckeye

Senior Member

7,117 posts
Jun 22, 2017 7:34 PM
salto;1859971 wrote:It's a numbers thing. Owning a gun increases your chance of being killed by one.
Not true. Your chances of being killed by someone using a gun are approximately six times less being killed with (not by, NO ONE is killed BY a gun) a gun than using one to successfully defending oneself.
Jun 22, 2017 7:34pm
like_that's avatar

like_that

1st Team All-PWN

26,625 posts
Jun 22, 2017 7:38 PM
salto;1859980 wrote:My bad, I forgot to turn on the sarcastic font.

As for if banning one type of gun, "would work" define work. Would more restrictions on types of weapons civilians could own, it's going back to that numbers game.



[/FONT]

.
Ok then, what if I told you we already banned the AR-15 for 10 years and gun crime was higher during the ban than post ban. This is a fact, you're more than welcome to search yourself.

Would you then recommend to ban more types of guns? Or how about pass more laws when the numbers don't drop to your liking? It's only a numbers game after all.
Jun 22, 2017 7:38pm
salto's avatar

salto

Senior Member

2,611 posts
Jun 22, 2017 7:44 PM
like_that;1859982 wrote:Ok then, what if I told you we already banned the AR-15 for 10 years and gun crime was higher during the ban than post ban. This is a fact, you're more than welcome to search yourself.

Would you then recommend to ban more types of guns? Or how about pass more laws when the numbers don't drop to your liking? It's only a numbers game after all.
I know most gun crimes happen with hand guns. Thanks.

Matter of fact, the AR-15 was never fully banned.

hope this helps.
Jun 22, 2017 7:44pm
salto's avatar

salto

Senior Member

2,611 posts
Jun 22, 2017 7:46 PM
like_that;1859982 wrote:Ok then, what if I told you we already banned the AR-15 for 10 years and gun crime was higher during the ban than post ban. This is a fact, you're more than welcome to search yourself.

Would you then recommend to ban more types of guns? Or how about pass more laws when the numbers don't drop to your liking? It's only a numbers game after all.
I know most gun crimes happen with hand guns and the AR-15 was never fully banned.

hope this helps.
Jun 22, 2017 7:46pm
salto's avatar

salto

Senior Member

2,611 posts
Jun 22, 2017 7:49 PM
Massacres like the GOP softball shooter and every day gun violence are not the same.
Jun 22, 2017 7:49pm
F

friendfromlowry

Senior Member

6,239 posts
Jun 22, 2017 7:56 PM
like_that;1859964 wrote:I'll give you that. He used redneck gym teacher grammar, but the main point I gathered from it was the 2nd amendment protects us from tyranny, which is what the purpose of the amendment is. If that is not what he meant, then I take back my comment about him educating you. You still need to pick up a US history book regardless.

How rich, said is calling me a dumbass, while he can't comprehend the 2nd amendment and US History. I had a solid idea what cc was trying to say and I was trying to get a clarification from FFL to see what exact mindset he was referring to since it was pretty easy to interpret CC's post in different ways. Try harder.
I tried to reply earlier but I couldn't really figure out what he was trying to say either, so I let it go.
IMO (and I can't emphasize that enough), I don't understand when people justify gun ownership as protecting themselves from the government or foreign invasion. And some of the stuff Belly use to say was ridiculous. You're right - years and years from now it might be different. But right now there's a million reasons why guns would ever be illegal here. So I don't get the "government could never take us over or take them away" argument.
What he said about being invaded by five different countries is absurd. In the meantime, people get shot practicing softball, at the movies, at school, etc.
Jun 22, 2017 7:56pm
Spock's avatar

Spock

Senior Member

2,853 posts
Jun 22, 2017 7:59 PM
Salto is doing his best sleeper impersonation
Jun 22, 2017 7:59pm
salto's avatar

salto

Senior Member

2,611 posts
Jun 22, 2017 8:09 PM
friendfromlowry;1859989 wrote: I don't understand when people justify gun ownership as protecting themselves from the government or foreign invasion. But right now there's a million reasons why guns would ever be illegal here. So I don't get the "government could never take us over or take them away" argument.
Some justify their gun ownership from an Amendment to the constitution, that happened over 200 years ago. They feel better about their ability to fight for their freedom.
Jun 22, 2017 8:09pm
majorspark's avatar

majorspark

Senior Member

5,122 posts
Jun 22, 2017 11:46 PM
salto;1859995 wrote:Some justify their gun ownership from an Amendment to the constitution, that happened over 200 years ago. They feel better about their ability to fight for their freedom.
Some of those amendments have also allowed some very disgusting shitbags to walk free of their crimes. They also many times hinder law enforcement from incarcerating potentially dangerous individuals who eventually take the lives of innocent individuals. Why is this acceptable? Because it makes it very difficult for the government to frivolously incarcerate individuals it does not like.

If you are worried about armed men killing people no entity in the history of mankind has been more proficient at doing so than government.
Jun 22, 2017 11:46pm
B

BoatShoes

Senior Member

5,703 posts
Jun 22, 2017 11:56 PM
like_that;1859982 wrote:Ok then, what if I told you we already banned the AR-15 for 10 years and gun crime was higher during the ban than post ban. This is a fact, you're more than welcome to search yourself.

Would you then recommend to ban more types of guns? Or how about pass more laws when the numbers don't drop to your liking? It's only a numbers game after all.
I agree focusing on types of guns is a mistake. It should be like securities law where the focus is on what sorts of people should be able to buy certain securities. If we can create a standard for what constitutes an accredited investor without this being a violation of the first amendment we can create a standard for an accredited firearm purchaser, etc. without violating the second amendment. Yes, some bad people will still get guns just as there is still securities fraud but the securities acts and the blue sky laws have been very effective at creating reasonably safe and sound and robust markets for capital formation.

A simple standard might be what it takes to get a concealed carry license as those with concealed carry licenses commit less crime than the general population. Make it a felony to sell a non-exempt unregistered firearm to unqualified purchaser like it's a felony to sell a non-exempt unregistered security to an unaccredited investor and the market players will largely self-regulate save the fraudsters and criminals - like securities law - creating a small population for law enforcement to go after.

And again, if securities laws don't violate the first amendment you can't say a similar regulatory structure violates the second amendment in my humble opinion.
Jun 22, 2017 11:56pm
like_that's avatar

like_that

1st Team All-PWN

26,625 posts
Jun 23, 2017 12:18 AM
salto;1859995 wrote:Some justify their gun ownership from an Amendment to the constitution, that happened over 200 years ago. They feel better about their ability to fight for their freedom.
So, I take this as you no longer have a legitimate argument and choose to ignore history (some very recent history)? Got it. It's your right to be ignorant.
Jun 23, 2017 12:18am
like_that's avatar

like_that

1st Team All-PWN

26,625 posts
Jun 23, 2017 12:34 AM
friendfromlowry;1859989 wrote:I tried to reply earlier but I couldn't really figure out what he was trying to say either, so I let it go.
IMO (and I can't emphasize that enough), I don't understand when people justify gun ownership as protecting themselves from the government or foreign invasion. And some of the stuff Belly use to say was ridiculous. You're right - years and years from now it might be different. But right now there's a million reasons why guns would ever be illegal here. So I don't get the "government could never take us over or take them away" argument.
What he said about being invaded by five different countries is absurd. In the meantime, people get shot practicing softball, at the movies, at school, etc.
That's my point though. It's really easy to take that for granted right now, until it's taken away from you. Just like it's easy to take the first amendment for granted right now as well. It's another form of checks and balances. I'll stop mentioning Venezuela, but there are other also plenty of examples in history where a country's Government rose to tyranny by chipping away at gun rights. It even happened on a lesser scale in our own country (unarmed blacks in the south vs armed blacks in the north).


There are several other things this country can do to reduce gun crimes well before chipping away at gun rights imo.
Jun 23, 2017 12:34am
like_that's avatar

like_that

1st Team All-PWN

26,625 posts
Jun 23, 2017 12:40 AM
BoatShoes;1860013 wrote:I agree focusing on types of guns is a mistake. It should be like securities law where the focus is on what sorts of people should be able to buy certain securities. If we can create a standard for what constitutes an accredited investor without this being a violation of the first amendment we can create a standard for an accredited firearm purchaser, etc. without violating the second amendment. Yes, some bad people will still get guns just as there is still securities fraud but the securities acts and the blue sky laws have been very effective at creating reasonably safe and sound and robust markets for capital formation.

A simple standard might be what it takes to get a concealed carry license as those with concealed carry licenses commit less crime than the general population. Make it a felony to sell a non-exempt unregistered firearm to unqualified purchaser like it's a felony to sell a non-exempt unregistered security to an unaccredited investor and the market players will largely self-regulate save the fraudsters and criminals - like securities law - creating a small population for law enforcement to go after.

And again, if securities laws don't violate the first amendment you can't say a similar regulatory structure violates the second amendment in my humble opinion.
The problem is creating a legitimate standard. If it can be done, then I'm sure nobody would complain. So far the only suggestion I have seen is ban gun ownership to those on the no fly list, which is a severely flawed list. Not to mention a slippery slope considering the Government could place anyone on the list without notification.
Jun 23, 2017 12:40am
salto's avatar

salto

Senior Member

2,611 posts
Jun 23, 2017 3:53 AM
like_that;1860014 wrote: It's your right to be ignorant.
Just like it's your right to be delusional.
Jun 23, 2017 3:53am
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
Jun 23, 2017 6:03 AM
Jun 23, 2017 6:03am
Q

queencitybuckeye

Senior Member

7,117 posts
Jun 23, 2017 6:28 AM
People are looking at the wrong branch of government for the problem. Have the executive fix the bi-partisan anemic track record of enforcing existing law, then talk to me about new legislation.
Jun 23, 2017 6:28am
CenterBHSFan's avatar

CenterBHSFan

333 - I'm only half evil

6,115 posts
Jun 23, 2017 6:57 AM
salto;1859966 wrote:As for my musket comment, I was referring to the times when the constitution was written, as in the 200+ years ago. Back when Militias were important, like fighting off the Queen. Like back during the Revolution war.....keep up junior.
Just wanted to point out that it was a king. King George III.
That's an important fact.
Jun 23, 2017 6:57am
fish82's avatar

fish82

Senior Member

4,111 posts
Jun 23, 2017 7:13 AM
Safe to say that said is likely not a constitutional scholar by trade.
Jun 23, 2017 7:13am