More mass shootings

[rushmc 23]

billvon

>Now you're changing the goalposts.

Of course he is. It's the old gun two-step.

"He could have killed them with a CAR! Why don't you ban CARS?"
"Cars have licensing, insurance, inspection and registration requirements. So you'd be OK with such laws for guns?"
"No law would have prevented this!"
"No law prevents ANYTHING, but it does reduce the incidence of the crime."
"Well, no law would do that!"
"Here's a law that DID do that: X"
"X would never work!"
"It worked in Australia."
"Well, the, uh, the . . . Second Amendment!"

You could have the good witch of the East wave her wondering and make all bullets duds.

What do you think???

Right up there on the same level as yoinks suggestions

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,991]

>You could have the good witch of the East wave her wondering and make all
>bullets duds. What do you think?

I think that makes about as much sense as most of your other posts.

[Hooknswoop 19]

"No one here is against guns"

Quote

I don't think banning guns outright would work in the US. If I thought it would then I'd be for it.

Proves my point that Bill Von is wrong that no one here is against guns. You are not alone and that is OK.

Quote

But what I've not heard from you (or from most people on the gun rights side) is either an admittance that you personally are willing to accept the continual mass murders so that you can continue to have access to firearms, or any remote suggestion of what controls might work.

I have said it before and I'll say it again, I am willing to accept the current level of gun deaths for the current level of gun restrictions.

Kallend once wrote; "In a typical year 1 skydiver out of 1000 will die. We can only reduce that to zero by regulating skydiving out of existence. If that is not acceptable, then you have to define what level of risk is acceptable to you. And if someone else has a higher risk tolerance than you, why should your opinion prevail over theirs through regulation?

One reason I do not trust those that would pass new gun laws:

The Colorado congresswoman who sponsored the Magazine limit law, Rep. Diana DeGette, did not understand that magazines can be reloaded:

http://blogs.denverpost.com/...how-they-work/93506/

Asked how a ban on magazines holding more than 15 rounds would be effective in reducing gun violence, DeGette said:

“I will tell you these are ammunition, they’re bullets, so the people who have those know they’re going to shoot them, so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won’t be any more available.”

Quote

It's a piece of piss just to sit there and go 'no' to every suggestion - it requires no effort, thought or flexibility on your part. You don't even bother to explain WHY you think ideas aren't valid because that would open the door for discussion which is anathema to you

A- The onus is not on me to defend the current situation. The onus is on those that want to make the change. I do explain why I think others' ideas not not valid; Too much restriction for not enough decrease in gun-deaths.

I have been on the other side of the discussion, the wing loading BSR. Kallend did the same thing; "I believe that decisions about rules and regulations should be the result of detailed analysis of the problem, not my gut feeling."

So much of the anti-gun discussion is driven by emotion.

Quote

I actually think the idea of a remotely locked firearm which can only be fired in specific designated areas is something that might work. You can have as many guns as you want, but they can only be fired on your own property or at a range by default. If you want an exception for hunting you'd need to apply for a specific zone for a specific date which would then need to be approved.
Obviously if someone starts applying for a zone in a school, or city center it doesn't get validated...

Too much restriction. No way am I going to allow my firearms to be remotely locked.

Derek V

[normiss 801]

There may come a day when you have no choice but to accept additional restrictions, and ones clearly approved by the Supreme Court at that.

I'd love to see a reduction in innocents dying.
Until the staunch gun rights supporters feel that pain personally, I doubt we will due to the pushback.

It just makes zero sense why it is tolerated to murder children and other random citizens.

[billvon 2,991]

>So much of the anti-gun discussion is driven by emotion.

Yep. Why can't they be more objective, like the pro-gun people, who just want liberals to keep their GUN-GRABBING HANDS OFF MY PRECIOUS GUNS?

[kallend 2,027]

Hooknswoop

1. We fundamentally disagree on the definition of the problem.
Derek V

So you think that it's not a problem that:

1) >30 US citizens are murdered with guns every day.
2) > 100 US citizens die from gunfire every day.
3) The US is way out of line with every other G20 nation in the number of firearms deaths per 100,000 population.
4) The US is way out of line in the number of children killed by guns.

So what WOULD constitute a problem for you?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 2,027]

Hooknswoop

So much of the anti-gun discussion is driven by emotion.



Derek V

So?

People tend to get emotional when 1st graders are shot dead in their classrooms, or their family members are shot dead at a concert, in church, or at a movie.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

There may come a day when you have no choice but to accept additional restrictions, and ones clearly approved by the Supreme Court at that.

Agreed.

Quote

I'd love to see a reduction in innocents dying.
Until the staunch gun rights supporters feel that pain personally, I doubt we will due to the pushback.

Agreed.

Quote

It just makes zero sense why it is tolerated to murder children and other random citizens.

That is the price of the 2nd amendment.

Derek V

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

>So much of the anti-gun discussion is driven by emotion.

Yep. Why can't they be more objective, like the pro-gun people, who just want liberals to keep their GUN-GRABBING HANDS OFF MY PRECIOUS GUNS?

I worded that poorly. I wasn't calling anti-gun people emotional. I meant the entire discussion, both sides.

Derek V

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

So you think that it's not a problem that:

1) >30 US citizens are murdered with guns every day.
2) > 100 US citizens die from gunfire every day.
3) The US is way out of line with every other G20 nation in the number of firearms deaths per 100,000 population.
4) The US is way out of line in the number of children killed by guns.

Correct.

Quote

So what WOULD constitute a problem for you?

Good question. Increased restrictions with small to no decrease in gun-deaths.

Derek V

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

So?

So, making laws based on emotion and not logic results in bad laws. See the Colorado magazine restriction for a good example.

I was at a gun range recently. You could buy 30-round magazine "kits". Same magazine as before the new law, you just had to take about 15 seconds and assemble it.

Derek V

[billvon 2,991]

> Increased restrictions with small to no decrease in gun-deaths.

So if they made the AFF JCC harder resulting in only a small to no decrease in skydiving deaths, you would oppose that? Since there would be more restrictions on AFF instructor candidates?

[normiss 801]

The fact that anyone is willing to accept that as a "price" for a constitutional right speaks to the lack of proper mental health care in this country.
It's insane to be willing to accept that.
Thankfully, the Supreme Court agrees, so far.

[Lawndarter 3]

Hooknswoop

That is the price of the 2nd amendment.

For which, looking at other countries, you get absolutely nothing.

[GeorgiaDon 362]

Quote

I have said it before and I'll say it again, I am willing to accept the current level of gun deaths for the current level of gun restrictions.

Are you willing to offer your own children, spouse, members of your extended family, your best friend, or even your self as blood payment? Should that payment be exacted (which I certainly hope would never be the case) would you be so callous as to say "Well the loss of my wife/son/daughter/etc is not too big a price to pay"? You certainly seem callous enough about other people's loss.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

So if they made the AFF JCC harder resulting in only a small to no decrease in skydiving deaths, you would oppose that? Since there would be more restrictions on AFF instructor candidates?

Apples and oranges. There would not be more restrictions on candidates, the course would just have higher standards. Also, your metrics are lacking. An AFFI doesn't just keep the student alive, they teach. Both in free fall and on the ground. If they can fly better, they can teach better.

That is why I think the course should back to the old standard. Not because of the fatality rate for AFF jumps, but because of the higher quality AFFI's.

Derek V

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

So what WOULD constitute a problem for you?

What WOULDN'T constitute a problem for you?

Derek V

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

Are you willing to offer your own children, spouse, members of your extended family, your best friend, or even your self as blood payment? Should that payment be exacted (which I certainly hope would never be the case) would you be so callous as to say "Well the loss of my wife/son/daughter/etc is not too big a price to pay"? You certainly seem callous enough about other people's loss.

This is what I meant about bringing emotion into the discussion.

Derek V

[normiss 801]

I'd be good with ZERO public mass murders, ZERO bump fire stocks permitted, and ZERO public access to full auto weapons.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

I'd be good with ZERO public mass murders, ZERO bump fire stocks permitted, and ZERO public access to full auto weapons.

Would you be good with ZERO guns?

Derek V

[billvon 2,991]

> There would not be more restrictions on candidates

Of course there would. It would be harder to get a rating. More people would be unable to be AFF rating holders.

>That is why I think the course should back to the old standard. Not because of the fatality rate
>for AFF jumps, but because of the higher quality AFFI's.

So guns kill ~30,000 people a year, and it's unreasonable to do something that reduces that if it makes guns harder to get.

Bad AFF instructors kill zero people a year, and it's perfectly reasonable to make the rating harder to get, because then there will be fewer, higher quality AFF-I's.

[gowlerk 2,194]

Lawndarter

***
That is the price of the 2nd amendment.

For which, looking at other countries, you get absolutely nothing.


Wrong. US gun lovers get the right to play with the toys of war. Killing machines are very cool, and they make their owners feel very powerful. Dead children and other strangers do not matter as much as the right to those feelings of power and joy.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[normiss 801]

I don't want nor expect that.
I find it odd that most of the aggressive gun rights supporters always assume this is the intent, it's not.
Precisely why I've never mentioned anything near that.

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

So guns kill ~30,000 people a year, and it's unreasonable to do something that reduces that if it makes guns harder to get.

Yes.

Quote

Bad AFF instructors kill zero people a year, and it's perfectly reasonable to make the rating harder to get, because then there will be fewer, higher quality AFF-I's.

Yes.

Derek V

[Hooknswoop 19]

Quote

I'd be good with ZERO public mass murders, ZERO bump fire stocks permitted, and ZERO public access to full auto weapons.

Quote

I don't want nor expect that.
I find it odd that most of the aggressive gun rights supporters always assume this is the intent, it's not.
Precisely why I've never mentioned anything near that.

Fair enough. How would you get to "ZERO public mass murders"

Derek V