2016 Election Thread

[mikecgrimes]

 

Reasonable like the NRA's opposition to "smart" guns?  Guns which could only be fired by the owner?

 

That kind of reasonable?

 

I've never heard of that concept, I would think most people would want more then one person to have access to one gun,for example if I had already been shot I sure hope my wife would be able to pull the trigger.  Assuming it's impossible for anyone to manipulate the system, and it never has any glitches I have no problem with that concept.  It seems like you might run into problems creating something that passes that criteria, but to that I say try harder or deal with the fact you won't find agreement.  I get that these things all sound paranoid, but the 2nd amendment rights are that critical.

 

Many of these murders were committed with people carrying multiple firearms and duffel bags full of ammo.

Like I said, you want a rifle and a box of bullets? Sure. I'm on board. Anything more and you care more about that trumped up right than a bloody classroom full of first graders. That isn't hyperbole, that's a real trade off you are making.

This is where the sacrifice has to be made.  If there were 10 of these mass school shootings a year I'd probably be willing to agree with you but something this rare as tragic as it is has to be put in the proper perspective.  Just like auto accidents or plane crashes we have to weigh the good with the bad.  Maybe you don't think the good amounts to as much as I think it does, but we could start banning a lot of things if we focus on the worst things that ever happen as a result.

[TheLeviathan]

 

This is where the sacrifice has to be made.  If there were 10 of these mass school shootings a year I'd probably be willing to agree with you but something this rare as tragic as it is has to be put in the proper perspective.  Just like auto accidents or plane crashes we have to weigh the good with the bad.  Maybe you don't think the good amounts to as much as I think it does, but we could start banning a lot of things if we focus on the worst things that ever happen as a result.

 

So, to be clear, you sacrifice a classroom full of first graders in a terrorized bloodbath in the name of having more than one gun?  That tradeoff is acceptable for you. 

 

Because we KNOW that this does not happen anywhere else in the Western world at even a fraction of the rate it happens here.  All you have to do to agree that no 6 year old massacres have to happen is turn over a few of your guns (not all even!) and you can prevent that from happening.....

 

.....and you choose guns over those lives.  Wow.  Sadly, I think most people that share your opinion would do the same.  And you complain about which side of the aisle is being "reasonable".  Holy #*^#

[drjim]

 

In fact Congress has worked in the opposite direction when they passed this:

 

 

I do agree, the gun company's need skin the game to incentivize their involvement in the solution to the problem.

 

Indeed. If I was working to decrease guns and gun deaths I would hammer this point over and over again. This is where meaningful change happens on this issue.

 

Not exactly holding my breath waiting on the strategic acumen of the Democratic Party.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Check out the Ted Cruz office space commercial.  I love stuff like that.  Nothing will top Bernie's ads but Cruz has some good comedy going.

 

You mean the one where they cast a porn star?

[Badsmerf]

So, to be clear, you sacrifice a classroom full of first graders in a terrorized bloodbath in the name of having more than one gun? That tradeoff is acceptable for you.

 

Because we KNOW that this does not happen anywhere else in the Western world at even a fraction of the rate it happens here. All you have to do to agree that no 6 year old massacres have to happen is turn over a few of your guns (not all even!) and you can prevent that from happening.....

 

.....and you choose guns over those lives. Wow. Sadly, I think most people that share your opinion would do the same. And you complain about which side of the aisle is being "reasonable". Holy #*^#

I don't think it is that simple. We have been a country with guns for so long, and have so many, this idea is simply impossible. Plus, you'd then be taking guns from law abiding, responsible people. Then, you have a higher proportion of guns in the segment of the population you don't want to have them. It just doesn't work.

 

You dismiss shooting for sport so easily. My mother in law is an nra instructor. While i think the nra is more interested in making money than protecting rights, a lot of people enjoy going to the range and sporting for sport. These are not the people committing gun violence crimes. Perhaps giving away gun vaults to keep them safe from others would be more effective?

 

The mass shooting are a complex problem right now. I think it starts with better tracking and more strict sales requirements. I don't know if keeping records of who owns what is the right answer, but it might be. At some point we can't keep doing what hasn't worked.... and we might have to give a small amount freedom in order to change.

[DaveW]

I love people who say gun control would never work.

 

Literally look at NYC as 100% proof that gun control lowers the murder and violent crime rates significantly.

[DaveW]

I've never heard of that concept, I would think most people would want more then one person to have access to one gun,for example if I had already been shot I sure hope my wife would be able to pull the trigger. Assuming it's impossible for anyone to manipulate the system, and it never has any glitches I have no problem with that concept. It seems like you might run into problems creating something that passes that criteria, but to that I say try harder or deal with the fact you won't find agreement. I get that these things all sound paranoid, but the 2nd amendment rights are that critical.

 

This is where the sacrifice has to be made. If there were 10 of these mass school shootings a year I'd probably be willing to agree with you but something this rare as tragic as it is has to be put in the proper perspective. Just like auto accidents or plane crashes we have to weigh the good with the bad. Maybe you don't think the good amounts to as much as I think it does, but we could start banning a lot of things if we focus on the worst things that ever happen as a result.

Wow, just wow. I imagine you would change your tune pretty quickly if someone you knew was killed in a shooting.

 

As far as planes go: there have been like dozens of mass shootings since the last US airline crash. Also every time an airplane crashes the FAA, Govt etc more or less spend tons of time and effort to fix the problem and make planes more safe moving fwd, aviation has come along ways in the last 30-40 years because when "**** happens" airlines and the FAA don't say "oh well a sacrifice has to be made" they say "we can't allow this to happen again, period!" They goto work and they make airlines safer then they ever have been before! Also go ahead and check out the stats of American based airline deaths and shooting deaths over the last twenty years (even toss in 9/11 for good measure) it doesn't come close.

 

Imagine if we tried to actually "fix" a mass shooting problem after it happened instead of just throwing our hands up in the air.

[mikecgrimes]

 

So, to be clear, you sacrifice a classroom full of first graders in a terrorized bloodbath in the name of having more than one gun?  That tradeoff is acceptable for you. 

 

 

Without question.  Way more children die in auto accidents each and every year.  The ability to distort perspective while easy is pretty pathetic.

[TheLeviathan]

Without question. Way more children die in auto accidents each and every year. The ability to distort perspective while easy is pretty pathetic.

And we actively hold car makers responsible for unsafe vehicles. We have strict laws in place for how children are to be transported. We have licensing procedures and background checks for unsafe drivers.

 

We can get those for transportation vehicles but we can't for killing devices.

 

And you're not even being asked to give all your guns, just yo have the one you need for protection and sacrifice the rest to save innocent lives. It's an easy freakin trade off.

[TheLeviathan]

I don't think it is that simple. We have been a country with guns for so long, and have so many, this idea is simply impossible. Plus, you'd then be taking guns from law abiding, responsible people. Then, you have a higher proportion of guns in the segment of the population you don't want to have them. It just doesn't work.

You dismiss shooting for sport so easily. My mother in law is an nra instructor. While i think the nra is more interested in making money than protecting rights, a lot of people enjoy going to the range and sporting for sport. These are not the people committing gun violence crimes. Perhaps giving away gun vaults to keep them safe from others would be more effective?

The mass shooting are a complex problem right now. I think it starts with better tracking and more strict sales requirements. I don't know if keeping records of who owns what is the right answer, but it might be. At some point we can't keep doing what hasn't worked.... and we might have to give a small amount freedom in order to change.

Go to a range and use their guns. Why do you need to have a Punisher room in your house? That's how these happen primarily - over proliferation and the mindset that this is ok when it is comically unnecessary.

 

Law abiding citizens are going to have to wake up, like they did with cigarettes, and drop their destructive habit. Guns don't prevent crime, if they did the invention of it and distribution of it yo the police would have ended crime. So, no, I don't want to have to take people's guns. I'd rather they care enough about their fellow citizen to turn them in on their own.

[formerly33]

 

Without question.  Way more children die in auto accidents each and every year.  The ability to distort perspective while easy is pretty pathetic.

Boy, if everything we did was based off whether something else was worse, imagine where we'd be now.

 

Statistically, the number of abortions and the number of deaths caused by car accidents are pretty similar. However, that's leaving out the 20-50 million people who are injured/disabled due to car accidents. Does that justify abortion in your mind? I sincerely doubt it.

[mikecgrimes]

 

And we actively hold car makers responsible for unsafe vehicles. We have strict laws in place for how children are to be transported. We have slice sing procedures and vackground checks for unsafe drivers.

We can get those for transportation vehicles but we can't for killing devices.

And you're not even being asked to give all your guns, just yo have the one you need for protection and sacrifice the rest to save innocent lives. It's an easy freakin trade off.

 

Car makers are not responsible for drunk or reckless drivers which are the cause of the vast majority of accidents.  Just because I'm sick of reading it and it would in no way stop school shootings I do not find a limit on the amount of guns a person can have as a reasonable demand.  That is at the core of the 2nd amendment.  If you started by saying 2 or 3 guns I might disagree but at least I would see it as reasonable from your perspective.  Just so we are clear what your suggesting means that if for whatever reason something goes wrong with your gun you don't care.  It's probably so rare that it shouldn't be at the core of the debate right, maybe it would it would only amount to say the same # of deaths as mass shootings.

 

Sorry on some things like the constitution there is no room for compromise.  We will always agree to reasonable solutions that work, but so far I have seen nothing to suggest the other side of the debate has ever come up with any.

[TheLeviathan]

Car makers are not responsible for drunk or reckless drivers which are the cause of the vast majority of accidents.  Just because I'm sick of reading it and it would in no way stop school shootings I do not find a limit on the amount of guns a person can have as a reasonable demand.  That is at the core of the 2nd amendment.  If you started by saying 2 or 3 guns I might disagree but at least I would see it as reasonable from your perspective.  Just so we are clear what your suggesting means that if for whatever reason something goes wrong with your gun you don't care.  It's probably so rare that it shouldn't be at the core of the debate right, maybe it would it would only amount to say the same # of deaths as mass shootings.

 

Sorry on some things like the constitution there is no room for compromise.  We will always agree to reasonable solutions that work, but so far I have seen nothing to suggest the other side of the debate has ever come up with any.

Good god.

 

First, I've yet to hear one damn solution out of your side. So lay some on me. And they better be really freaking good.

 

Second, the second amendment says you can form a militia, not be the Punisher. As someone else said, you can only really use one gun at a time, so that's all you need. You want to have another one or two for hunting? Sure. Anything more is indefensible.

 

Third, you skipped over licensing and background checks, we do them for cars and being freaking social workers, why not for handling instruments of death?

[mikecgrimes]

 

 

Boy, if everything we did was based off whether something else was worse, imagine where we'd be now.

 

 

I'm not the one demanding we strike a match to the constitution.  If you're willing to take guns from cops the secret service and the military I will respect your view as it's consistent.  Citizens shouldn't have to fight this hard for the rights we are guaranteed.  

 

In any event I think at this point we all know my perspective and we all know the other sides.  I respect your point of view but reversing the constitution without being honest about it is something I can't respect.

[formerly33]

 

Good god.

First, I've yet to hear one damn solution out of your side. So lay some on me. And they better be really freaking good.

Second, the second amendment says you can form a militia, not be the Punisher. As someone else said, you can only really use one gun at a time, so that's all you need. You want to have another one or two for hunting? Sure. Anything more is indefensible.

Third, you skipped over licensing and background checks, we do them for cars and being freaking social workers, why not for handling instruments of death?

Because there's nothing in the Constitution about social workers? idk ...

 

//for the record, Mike, you didn't need to go and like this. I was only trying to point out the irony.

[mikecgrimes]

 

 

Good god.

First, I've yet to hear one damn solution out of your side. So lay some on me. And they better be really freaking good.
 

 

I think murder should be a punishable crime, I guess that solution hasn't stopped all murder but that is in fact a solution.  Sometimes the best solutions are already on the books, I guess we're back to the demand for new laws for the sake of new laws.  I get that mass shootings are a different problem, but even the president admitted he has yet to hear a solution to that problem from his own side.

[formerly33]

I'm not the one demanding we strike a match to the constitution.  If you're willing to take guns from cops the secret service and the military I will respect your view as it's consistent.  Citizens shouldn't have to fight this hard for the rights we are guaranteed.

What? Did I ever remotely suggest such a thing? I suppose since one person's interpretation of the Bible differs from another's, the less conservative person is suggesting we strike a match to it? I mean, since I don't wear head coverings, have short hair, don't think women should be silent in church, believe we're equal, da di da di da, am I suggesting we burn the Bible? Or is my opinion justified by Galatians 3:28 ("There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.")?

 

Also, I thought the cops, the secret service, and the military were supposed to form a well regulated militia ... ?

 

In any event I think at this point we all know my perspective and we all know the other sides.  I respect your point of view but reversing the constitution without being honest about it is something I can't respect.

You keep pointing out my dishonesty. I'd appreciate an example in place of, "Liar, liar! Pants on fire!"

[DaveW]

I think holding a document that is 250 years old as an end all be all for guidance is a terrible idea..... So yes I would love to take a match to parts of the constitution and start anew personally.

[Squirrel]

 

I'm not the one demanding we strike a match to the constitution.  If you're willing to take guns from cops the secret service and the military I will respect your view as it's consistent.  Citizens shouldn't have to fight this hard for the rights we are guaranteed.  

 

In any event I think at this point we all know my perspective and we all know the other sides.  I respect your point of view but reversing the constitution without being honest about it is something I can't respect.

Where in the Constitution does it say we have the right to own as many automatic and semi-automatic guns that we want to? The right to bear arms is not an unlimited right, the same as free speech isn't either. No rights are unlimited, the same way freedom isn't either. No one wants to take away the right to bear arms, absolutely no one, so quit with that defense and propose something that will work. The problem is you seem not to want any kind of solution whatsoever no matter what. So please, tell me what your solution is to gun violence in this country, because doing nothing isn't working.

[formerly33]

 

Car makers are not responsible for drunk or reckless drivers which are the cause of the vast majority of accidents.  Just because I'm sick of reading it and it would in no way stop school shootings I do not find a limit on the amount of guns a person can have as a reasonable demand.  That is at the core of the 2nd amendment.  If you started by saying 2 or 3 guns I might disagree but at least I would see it as reasonable from your perspective.  Just so we are clear what your suggesting means that if for whatever reason something goes wrong with your gun you don't care.  It's probably so rare that it shouldn't be at the core of the debate right, maybe it would it would only amount to say the same # of deaths as mass shootings.

 

Sorry on some things like the constitution there is no room for compromise.  We will always agree to reasonable solutions that work, but so far I have seen nothing to suggest the other side of the debate has ever come up with any.

No, but steps are made to prevent drunk and reckless driving.

 

We can't say that since DUI has room for improvement, we can ignore other issues.

 

To sum up your beliefs, this may be wrong, but so is that, so why bother trying to change anything? Essentially, you are saying the US is beyond hope. Yet you insist that we are the ones who are trying to destroy the nation.

[TheLeviathan]

I'm not the one demanding we strike a match to the constitution.  If you're willing to take guns from cops the secret service and the military I will respect your view as it's consistent.  Citizens shouldn't have to fight this hard for the rights we are guaranteed.  

 

In any event I think at this point we all know my perspective and we all know the other sides.  I respect your point of view but reversing the constitution without being honest about it is something I can't respect.

If altering the constitution is akin to lighting it ablaze, then 2nd amendment itself lit it up years ago. Not to mention treating black people like people.

 

You didn't even manage one solution slappy...cmon.

 

If you think your hand gun is going defend you against the govt. then you're just being silly.

 

Now...solutions, let's hear them.

[mikecgrimes]

 

I think holding a document that is 250 years old as an end all be all for guidance is a terrible idea..... So yes I would love to take a match to parts of the constitution and start anew personally.

 

Honesty is refreshing, i respect that.

[mikecgrimes]

Back to the topic that matters the 2016 election.  Huge news Jim Gilmore has dropped out.  I can only assume this is good news for Trump as I would expect him to get 6 or 7 of Gillmore's supporters.

[TheLeviathan]

So, after boo-hoping for pages about a lack of solutions....

 

The answer offered is to do nothing but enforce murder laws?

[formerly33]

 

So, after boo-hoping for pages about a lack of solutions....

The answer offered is to do nothing but enforce murder laws?

Because it's not a big deal and the US quite obviously has it all together.

 

 

Back to the topic that matters ...

 

[drjim]

 

Back to the topic that matters the 2016 election.  Huge news Jim Gilmore has dropped out.  I can only assume this is good news for Trump as I would expect him to get 6 or 7 of Gillmore's supporters.

 

Can't say I knew much about Gilmore, but looking at his bio, seemed maybe the most qualified candidate? Probably why he never had a chance.

[drjim]

 

So, after boo-hoping for pages about a lack of solutions....

The answer offered is to do nothing but enforce murder laws?

 

I didn't really see a realistic solution from anyone, so there's that.

 

People are pretty good at identifying problems. It's the second part that usually gets you. Apparently unless you're Bernie Sanders.

[PseudoSABR]

 

I didn't really see a realistic solution from anyone, so there's that.

What the heck is realistic? I think that point is couched within the let's do nothing argument.

 

There's been plenty of plausible solutions that although wouldn't eradicate gun violence, would make it more difficult for potential mass-murderers from accruing an arsenal.   Any added difficulty potentially saves lives.

 

It's going to take a process - one legal and one cultural.  From background checks, to closing loop holes, to placing sensible restrictions on semi-automatics and magazine sizes, to restrictions on quantity as well.  And as you've suggested liability for the gun manufacturers.  There's also possible solutions through technology (like guns that can only be fired by the actual purchaser).

 

The only thing that keeps any of these solutions from being realistic is the recalcitrance of gun owners and their lobby. 

[formerly33]

 

I didn't really see a realistic solution from anyone, so there's that.

 

People are pretty good at identifying problems. It's the second part that usually gets you. Apparently unless you're Bernie Sanders.

Just as no amount of treatment is going to help an alcoholic until they identify the problem themselves, until the other half of the populace stops digging in their heels and recognizes this as an actual problem, no solution will ever be attainable.

 

Having lost most of my faith in humanity, I sincerely doubt we are capable of any real solution. However, background checks could be a step in the right direction if the right would stop squealing about them infringing their rights as free citizens of the United States. Rather than attempt to paint a beautiful picture like Ruben's "Allegory of Peace and War," I'll be real: nothing we can do will ever completely expunge crime and shootings from the face of the earth, but the main thing is we continue to do our best to move forward. If we came up with a solution that lowered the percentages by just a small number, made our country just a tiny bit safer to live in, I would count that down as a tiny step in the right direction.

[stringer bell]

Among the partial solutions to gun violence are an Assault Weapons Ban, limiting magazine sizes and closing the "gun show loophole". All of these proposals, to me, help in dealing with the most extreme gun crimes. The long game of changing the culture is the tougher part of the equation, but it is where the battle with gun violence will eventually be decided.

 

To restate, there isn't one single solution, but many pieces can be enacted without restricting gun ownership for law-abiding citizens.