What? Did I need to describe "give your car keys and a bottle of Jack to your kid" to clarify there?
Guns - staunch 2nd Amendment posters, help me
- Thread starter thewop
- Start date
What? Did I need to describe "give your car keys and a bottle of Jack to your kid" to clarify there?
"background checks" do nothing. Few, if any of the recent perps would fail one. Gun owners would never allow access to medical records indicating mental issues (and that's another road to not go down) NONE of the recent perps would have failed a 'mental competency' test, so that's a nonstarter as well.
Realtime tracking would certainly provide law enforcement a 'heads up' on quite a few of them, allowing seamless connection of local 'incidents' with ownership in a household.
Most importantly, tying gun ownership/registration to crimes committed with guns - where the owner is held responsible IF the weapons are not properly locked up from minors, or they loan them out, whatever - that WOULD prevent quite a few of these incidents. Did this kid "break into" his dad's gun safe to get the weapons? Or were they readily available to him?
"Regulation" doesn't mean "confiscating guns"; it means putting in place laws which require a high level of security on the weapons people want to own, and that they understand if those weapons are used to shoot people, they may hold liability under certain circumstances.
Someone having to spend a day or more smashing up a safe to gain access: probably not liable. NOT locking up your guns so your angry teenage son grabs them in anger and shoots someone: probably liable - at least partly. How many of these guns in recent shootings were legally obtained, but used by someone who SHOULD NOT have had access to them?
By habit I tune out any time guns and cars are compared. To be fair...because the conservatives like to do that.
Cuz one is heavily regulated, and any attempts to provide even moderate regulation of the other, means we're trying to "ban all of them"?
Figures, pretty much the key phrase there. ^^ Yet, you pop off like you do have an idea...as usual. Typical. Just for the record, you do not know what I think...yet your ego causes you to think that you do.
Kindly stick to what you know and quit posting BS that you imagine about others.
Let me try to translate what he is saying for you:
Many of the ideas liberals have proposed as potential solutions (more security, better mental health care, tougher gun laws, more education) have been shot down (pun intended) by conservatives. Both on this site and in the real world.
What are your thoughts on proposed solutions? I am genuinely interested.
I think it comes down to the parents.
In many of these situations, the parents let their mentally ill children be around guns.
In many of these situations, the parents let their mentally ill children be around guns.
I will provide more detail later this evening. But I did also share some thoughts about SRO's in another related thread today, FWIW. But I am not interested in conversing with Joe, he is a child and when he gets spanked, he flips the script and makes even more crap up.
I do agree that we should hold the parents responsible if they were negligent with how they protected the weapons, I just don't think it's an equal comparison.
Your other point that you've made numerous times about the school or police contacting the families if there is a behavior issue to have them lockup the guns or get them out of the house brings up other questions. Are you saying that if the family is never contacted, they don't need to worry about locking up their guns? It sounds like you only advocate for that if and when they are contacted by authorities.
It's funny how you start out all cock-sure and then go into a description of how some serial killers have operated, and ignore that so many other did not stalk their victim, torture or commit sex acts. Process killers don't make up the entire lot of serial killers.
Read a book before you act like an ass on the internet.
Last edited:
Name some serial killers who did not stalk, rape, or torture their victims.
For every one you can name, I can name five who did.
Bully for you. I'm still going to trust the FBIs classifications over your true crime book/podcast fed gut feelings.
I'm stating that "families which are notified, which HAVE arms in the household, should be held to a higher standard".
If your kid runs to school with a kitchen knife out of the drawer, there's not a whole lot anyone can do about that, because no one generally keeps their kitchen utensils locked up. Guns are different. So, take responsibility as an owner if your kid is "goofy".
Translation: "I have no solutions to propose, other than what the NRA has stated, which is what Joes Place called me out on and I'm trying to deny now"
Don’t leave us hanging. Serve up some of those statistics and links.
Here’s one that studied 480 serial murder victims and found that nearly 70% of them were sexually assaulted.
https://www.fbi.gov/file-repository/serialmurder-pathwaysforinvestigations.pdf
Heavy prosecution for those that violate the rights of the innocent for one. Bring gun safety training back to schools. Eliminate all the expensive taxes and tax stamps that cost people a lot of money to practice a right. Eliminate cost to gain a license.Those are just a few off the top of my head. Other people could add a lot more. The point is, is anti gunners want gun people to deal. In a deal both sides move. Or make concessions. The anti gun crowd has yet to do that in the history of our country.
WTF are you even arguing? I posted an opinion I had, a hypothesis, a theory. And now you're doing... whatever it is you're doing.
I'm well aware of the sexual nature of most serial killers and I've never argued otherwise. You on the other hand seem to have fixated on the most grotesque aspect of an already terrible topic to prove a point nobody is arguing with you about.
Stop being a jackass. Also, dont kill anyone ya weirdo.
They made "10 concessions" this past week. In case you weren't aware.
Again, I am on your side of the issue but sometimes you are impossible to try and have a conversation with.Cuz one is heavily regulated, and any attempts to provide even moderate regulation of the other, means we're trying to "ban all of them"?
That’s because joe is the smartest guy in the room and everyone else is a moron.
This line of discussion started when you posited your theory that guys who would have been serial killers 30 years ago now are turning to mass shootings instead. I countered that serial killers and mass shooters have an entirely different mindset and methodology and should not be conflated.
You then called me an ass and said you have FBI data that proves me wrong. So I posted FBI data that proves me right.
I’m still waiting to see your FBI data that proves me wrong.
Whatever. Do you plan on posting some proof or are you just going to keep making empty third grade level insults?
Proof of what?!? Proof that feel like some people that share commonalities with past serial killers may instead be carrying out mass murder? I'll get right on my application to Quantico.
It's not my fault you feel so strongly about process killers that you've never took the time to learn about contract killers, black widows, mafia enforcers, crackpot DC snipers, people that rob and kill or terrorists.
But you can ban them based on certain cartridges. Or perhaps limit magazine size for larger cartridge weapons. We're not looking at a blanket ban on all semi-automatic rifles necessarily. But you and everyone else here aught to know that there is a pretty dang big difference between a .22 rimfire LR and the .223 Remington that goes in an AR-15.
One is mostly good for killing rabbits and squirrels and the other one is pretty darn effective at killing people and would make a rabbit or squirrel explode.
Which one is best for a pit bull, bear, or a cougar that's trying to kill you?
I’m not wasting any more time trying to explain shit to you. You don’t even know what you’re disagreeing with or why you’re disagreeing with it. You’re just being disagreeable out of muscle memory.
I backed up my point with facts, you backed up your point with insults and gifs. You have successfully exhausted my daily tolerance for stupidity.
Probably a larger caliber although I doubt you would need something as big as a .223 Remmington for a pit bull. Regardless you don't need 30 shots to do it.
Also most people who go into the woods and worry about animal attack carry mace, not AR-15's. If not mace then large caliber handguns.
If only you would just reread the thread, youd find you're arguing with yourself. You went off the rails when you decided that I was trying to put forth a fact when I clearly did not. Have fun yelling at the clouds.
Precisely in line with my point; alleged Conservatives talk a big show about "responsible gun owners", but then simply refuse to put forth any common sense legislation to police their own.
Same thing on the 'hair trigger' model guns in another thread months ago - NRA could ABSOLUTELY create and enforce standards on things like this to improve safety. But they WON'T, because it'd impact their benefactors: manufacturers. And it was an Iowa police dept which SUED this manufacturer over that model due to accidental discharges and injuries.
Stop claiming this is about "gun owners"; it is about "gun makers" and protecting them at all costs, at the expense of the people victimized by guns.
What "legislation" do you want passed? If those breaking the law now don't follow the new laws? Do you really think that if a new law is put into place that all the bad folks are just gonna say "well, might as well stop"?
YOu want to stop school shootings? Put cops\MPs in the schools asap, that will have the most immediate impact. THEN start working on fixing the mental health issues and cut out the "don't arrest our kids so we can get more federal monies" bs.
Preventive legislation and penalties have certainly reduced drunk-driving fatalities and accident rates.
Is there something "magical" about guns that properly crafted legislation WON'T work here? Or, are you simply too stubborn to admit there might be solutions if the NRA and responsible gun owners come to the table to work something out?
Because gun MANUFACTURERS most assuredly will NOT 'buy in' on anything. Very much like how cigarette manufacturers would have NEVER conceded on the dangers of their products w/o government action. Ever.
A kid with no criminal history killed 10 people with a shotgun and a revolver. Are we going to ban shotguns and revolvers now?
Legislation may very well include cops in schools, but then that will obviously cost money, and making it law that they must be there, and making funds available to ensure they are there leaves districts/schools without excuse for not implementing.
You have to be very naive to believe legislation is going to fix it completely, but it can be used as a tool to send a message to students that we're serious about doing something, send a message to gun owners that they must ensure their guns are not made available to anyone but them outside their own supervision (make them liable when bad things happen with guns they're responsible for).
Continuing to refuse to discuss it is a losing battle, while taking it head on while they have the majority is a winning move for R's. It will likely take compromise, maybe it's giving up something in terms of what types of weapons are available to who, what means are available to obtain them, or what responsibilities gun owners have to ensure their weapons aren't used by anyone but themselves.
I honestly believe that if R's would pass something before the mid-terms, they'd stand a good chance of retaining the house. I see no downside to it whatsoever.
