When a troubled teen shoots up a school with his parents unsecured guns, I’d like to see those parents share in the responsibility of the deaths caused.
Sam Stoll accidentally shot
- Thread starter redbirdhawk
- Start date
Take the guns from all the criminals, when you get the last one, let me know and I'll give mine up.
Omfg I hate this thread, why do I keep checking it? Ha
Mic drop and BOOM goes the dynamite!
Now, can we get back on the topic at hand?
Is it true that, with Stoll already a lock for a Medical, Slaton will be returning to use his final year of eligibility at 285?
So you agree or disagree with law enforcement officials from Chicago who say it is difficult to enforce strict gun laws when 60% of confiscated guns are brought in from Illinois, Wisconsin and Mississippi or are you saying that this whole thing is a photo-op? The "No Guns Punishable by Law" thing only worked in the Old West in towns like Earp's Tombstone and Dodge City Oh wait, that was sarcasm, right?
Last edited:
Unfortunately that won’t bring back my late brother in law. Seven children were left without a father after Greg was shot by a troubled teen who was mad that his dad was getting remarried that day on a Caribbean island.
The babysitter was murdered first.
But when the Johnston IA police declined to send an officer to the house for a welfare check on a teen who didn’t show up for school and the sitter who never made it into work at Pioneer, the social worker was asked to check it out....
But when the Johnston IA police declined to send an officer to the house for a welfare check on a teen who didn’t show up for school and the sitter who never made it into work at Pioneer, the social worker was asked to check it out....
I for some reason continue to check this thread for an update on Stoll.... hopefully if anyone has news they will post it in a separate one.... this is freaking ridiculous.... worst case of off topic hijacking of a post I’ve ever seen on here
It's been posted in multiple places, on this thread and others that he's doing fine.
Until I see evidence to the contrary, I'm going with it. Hell, we can't get injury news during the season, so fat chance we're going to hear much more about it for a bit. IMO
el dub I know this won’t mean much but I am so so so sorry for your loss. I grew up with that troubled teen and what he did is one of the most despicable things that any one could do. I did not know that JPD opted not to go to the house but that doesn’t surprise me. From everything I have heard your brother was an amazing man and the world has and will miss his impact.
Yea as far as an update... I was wondering when he might be able to get on the mat again.... know he’s fine per se...at this point I guess if there’s any more news it will be in a new thread.... thanks
While honest debate on these things is healthy, one huge problem is the core of this post which is simply not accurate. You said you wanted to be free from the growing threat the gun culture poses. Factually this is just plain wrong. Gun crime and violent crime in general has been and is on the decline. Your chances of being randomly shot by a stranger are thousands of times less than being stuck by lightning. When these acts take place they're tragic and dramatic and we're inundated with them, but it's still an incredibly rare occurrence and your freedom is certainly not being infringed. That is unless you desire to be free to walk thru the west side of Chicago, south LA, or the drug gang infested parts of any other major city at night and not be assaulted.
There is still research on "gun violence" going on. Under Obama the CDC did a study. You probably didn't here about it since it didn't comport with the anti-self defense crowds views. What was shut down was funding for gun control advocacy masquerading as "research". Proof is why those with an agenda never look at how often a gun is used for self defense.
There are already "gun control" laws. The problem is that the Parkland shooter can be described as "troubled" and "disturbed", have 39 law enforcement encounters on record, and yet still be able to buy an AR-15 from a Florida gun shop.
Thank you for your observations. You're right, I did not know about the Obama-era study. But I am hesitant to agree with your stated reason for the lack of awareness of this study being due to the "anti-self defense crowd's" embarrassment with its conclusions. I, for one, am all for self-defense. I have often contemplated purchasing a gun for home safety purposes. What I do fear is the proliferation of guns in public places where sincere but untrained people try to take public safety and the law into their own hands.
That is correct. There are some gun control laws. But they are not very effective, given the gun violence. For example, I would like to see a return to an assault weapon ban. Why do good citizens need AR-15s? Why is this gun, and others like it, even manufactured and sold to the public?
Well, since you are easily impressed with quick Google searches...
1) America has six times as many firearm homicides as Canada, and nearly 16 times as many as Germany (U.S. has 30 per million)
2) America has 4.4 percent of the world’s population, but almost half of the civilian-owned guns around the world.
3) In the U.S., there have been more than 1,600 mass shootings since Sandy Hook.
4) On average, there is around one mass shooting (4+ victims per incident) every day in America.
5) States with more guns have more gun deaths.
6) All developed countries with more guns also have more gun deaths, but America is by far the outlier.
8) States with tighter gun control laws have fewer gun-related deaths.
9) Still, gun homicides (as with all homicides) have declined over the past couple decades.
10) Most gun deaths are suicides.
11) The states with the most guns report the most suicides.
12) Guns allow people to kill themselves much more easily.
13) Policies that limit access to guns have decreased suicides.
14) In states with more guns, more police officers are also killed on duty.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/us-gun-violence-statistics-maps-charts
You don't contribute to the "healthy debate" when you misquote. I clearly wrote that the threat I sense is from the "radicalized sector" of the gun culture. You left out my important qualifier, which was convenient to your argument.
Not sure which image struck me more... Sam on crutches, or that kid cranking his opponent from his back while keeping a foot inbounds!
And this is why I am cynical. In one paragraph, you don't like be caricatured as a "gun banner" and a few days later, you advocate for banning guns that are legal.
"Assault Rifles"/regular rifles (this could be hunting riles as well) count for around 300 gun homicides in the U.S. The real culprit, handguns, were around 7100 in 2016. Any "honest" gun control debate would start with handguns. It won't because they are popular here in the U.S. with all sides and it would be politically risky to even to suggest it. We know it, you know it but one side pretends banning one type of weapon will fix it when we really know its just a first step using the English model. They banned "assault" rifles and when that didn't work...handguns a few years later. You can own a hunting type rifle for a good enough reason (see rich, gentlemanly hunting) in England but you have to cut through a lot of red tape to get there. BTW, self defense is not a good enough reason anymore in England. I guess it's no longer a natural right. Another btw, England is now on Knife Control.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u....016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-4.xls
Before the assault rifle ban, most people (even gun nuts) didn't own them because many didn't know you could. Well, some dude shot up a McDonalds and they used this to get them banned even though they knew this type of weapon was rarely used in crime/murder. The murder rate in the 70s/80/90s was way higher than it is now per 100,000. Now, it is almost half. Banning assault rifles had no effect on it. After the ban's sunset, red faced politicians were screaming to high heaven that the murder rate would skyrocket. It hasn't even though after the ban lifted, they became popular and millions were purchased. Huge increase in supply of "assault rifles", rate stays the same.
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html
Last edited:
I appreciate your quotes of news articles. They had some good insights. To clarify, I complain that I have been characterized as one who wants to ban ALL guns, when that is not the case. I am for banning assault-style rifles, as well as a few other weapons that are totally unnecessary for the public to own, even though they are legal at present. I am for careful background checks, age-limit purchases, and a curb to these open-sale gun shows where criminals and even terrorists are likely to get their weapons. Keep your handguns and hunting rifles. I'm all for them. There is a distinction, here. I fail to see where that constitutes a contradiction, as you make my argument out to be.
But if you are making the argument for public safety, wouldn't you go after the biggest culprit first? To put it in wrestling terms, is Iowa training and recruiting to beat Iowa State or Penn State? Because right now, your only argument is the restriction of rights just say you did something even if it is not effective or because you don't see the need for an AR-15. BTW...the Va Tech shooter killed 32 and injured 17 using two handguns...a 9mm and a .22 I believe...both types are pretty weak in terms of power. Another very good source on mass shootings is Mother Jones (yes, I read lefty stuff too):
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data/
To me, stuff like this can be a good intellectual exercise but has no bearing on how I feel about any Iowa fan regardless of political stripes. We can all agree that the only goal is to beat PSU.
Chief, I very much appreciate that you are willing to engage in this "debate" (even if it is at poor Sam Stoll's expense!) without the insults I typically get. But, my previous post was an argument for not just banning the most deadly, mass-killing type of guns. Your point is well-taken that hand guns are employed in the vast majority of homicides. But my argument was clearly about entertaining a whole range of reasonable measures for dealing with our unique national problem, not just eliminating assault weapons. Right now, we don't know what could be effective because we haven't tried some things. Gun enthusiasts get nervous and angry when anyone brings up the subject. The NRA, of course, freaks out at any suggestion of control measures, perpetrating the "slippery slope" conspiracy.
And another shooting happened today. Could it have been stopped? I don't know. The shooter made threats that should have been addressed, I'm thinking. Maybe shootings should be banned from news coverage, so this stuff doesn't get glorified. I just wish the stigmatizing of the issue would be put to rest so that respectable people could make meaningful changes. Not much chance of that happening right now.
Anyway, I guess I'm done. Thanks for engaging. You can reply and I'll read it, but I can't keep this up.
And yes, my Hawkeye brother, the goal is to beat PSU...and anyone else who thinks they deserve to sit on the wrestling throne of glory. I won't be happy till we get NCAA title #35.
Then you should move to Minnesota (where I live in the Metro, but nowhere near Minneapolis or St. Paul), where the criminals have more rights than you do after they break into your home in the middle of the night.
The Twin Cities in particular, and I'm sure Chicago as well, is a criminals Utopia. Since a good share of Twin Cities crime is transplanted from Chicago also. A gift that keeps on giving.
To answer why good people need AR-15s, I'd say, to uphold the true essence of the 2nd Amendment. Government militaries and terrorist groups have weapons beyond an AR-15. The 2nd Amendment gives us the right to secure a free state and form a militia should we need to combat a threat against those freedoms. To ensure that we have equal footing as potential enemies, I am not in favor of a ban on assault weapons.
A good argument I heard against this belief is that because we have a civilian military, a majority of our military would not be likely to support a U.S. government's attempt to infringe on our free state, and would carry out the will of the people rather than the will of an unjust government. Our military is also armed and in place to combat outside threats. So maybe assault weapons are not needed in the hands of citizens beyond our military.
I enjoy the debate and can see both sides, but I will agree that restrictions that are already in place need to be enforced, and possible new laws that slow down the ability to obtain certain weapons should be considered. Most guns rights activists support laws to make sure guns don't end up in the wrong hands.
First, suicide is a problem. My Dad killed himself when I was 15 with a shotgun. Do I blame the shotgun? No, there is no doubt in my mind that he would have found another way. I think we make a mistake when we focus on the implement and not the underlying causes. I would argue there is no such thing as "gun violence". A gun is a pile of metal and plastic. It is simply a tool. It has no conscious or intent. If you are a homicide victim does it matter if you were killed with a gun, a knife or a baseball bat? I think we should focus on why so many young people don't have self control, a moral compass and hope for the future. In full disclosure I have been a concealed carry permit holder for 8 years. I have spent thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours on training including scenario based training with live people using sim. rounds. Almost every person I know who carries a gun are better trained than the average police officer. They are not vigilantes or people with big egos or attitudes. They are people who just want to protect themselves and their families wherever they happen to be. Making it harder or more expensive or prohibiting them from carrying in certain locations does not make society safer. All the above information which I believe is well intentioned on your part does not take into account that even though only (approx.) 4% of the public is licensed to carry a weapon (not taking into consideration "constitutional carry" states) guns are used far more often for self defense than for homicide (I would disregard the study that uses only justifiable homicide as successful self defense using a gun). Love you hawk wrestling fans. Stay safe.
Lay off Chicago. Most of us figure out how not to get shot.
*Fact*
Per capita current Hawk wrestlers are shot at a higher rate than residents of any of Chicago's worst neighborhoods.
Last edited:
One of the biggest lies out there is the claim there have been 1600 mass shootings since Sandy Hook. I agree even one mass shooting is 1 too many, but 1600 mass shootings have not happened. The NY Times claim has been debunked multiple times. Armed robberies, a family member flying off the handle, gang shootouts etc. should not be included in those numbers, yet they were. Secondly, how dare anyone tell me what I need or don't need. You don't need two cars, because you are killing the environment! Get it? See my point. Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean you get to be the arbiter of what we can and can't have, need or don't need.
The funny thing is, those that like to use suicide statistics in their argument regarding guns, are often times the same people espouse the "my body my choice mantra." It's funny how they flip their position when it comes to trying to add more rationale for gun restrictions. We already have gun laws. We already have mandatory background checks. What has happened too often is nobody bothers enforcing the existing law, or does not act when the multitude of red flags are there. If you don't enforce existing laws, restricting freedoms or writing new laws does very little.
The funny thing is, those that like to use suicide statistics in their argument regarding guns, are often times the same people espouse the "my body my choice mantra." It's funny how they flip their position when it comes to trying to add more rationale for gun restrictions. We already have gun laws. We already have mandatory background checks. What has happened too often is nobody bothers enforcing the existing law, or does not act when the multitude of red flags are there. If you don't enforce existing laws, restricting freedoms or writing new laws does very little.
