Thoughts after the mass shooting

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpecialFNK

I don't have a problem with a parent being held accountable for their underage child that uses a parents gun to shoot people, but not the same charges. hard to charge the parent with murder1 the same as the child.

---

Ill go even further. If your child kills more than one person, with or without your gun, you should be killed by stoning in the street.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spliff(TONE)

Very intelligent and relevant response. :clap:

---

Im just matching the intelligence i receive in this case...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeyc77

Im just matching the intelligence i receive in this case...

---

Nah, you've carved your own path on this one.

If your child is killing someone with a gun, the least of your worries should be about a gun and more about why that child was even thinking about killing someone with a gun. Moral of the story, raise your kid properly and make sure they understand right from wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OceanSpray

I'm referring to you claiming your solutions are definitive regarding gun laws in the country. I don't disagree with the raw data in face value because I've already stated that gun violence is an issue. But you have to break it down to suicides, mental illness, gang violence, etc., Solving these issues internally will decrease the amount of gun violence drastically. I'm not a fan of federally banning guns which you seem to be proposing (I assume) so if that's your solution, I simply disagree. Your sources doesn't suggest that there would be 0 deaths caused by guns if guns were banned. It just states that more guns = easier access to fatally hurt or kill someone which is quite obvious. More cars = more car deaths. Should we stop driving cars? How you perceive the data to support your narrative doesn't generate a definitive solution which you seem to think you have.

---

First Bolded: Yes solving those issues would reduce the number of gun deaths in this country. But so would reducing the amount of guns in the country. So why not do that?

Second Bolded: Of course they don't suggest it would result in 0 deaths, because preventative measures are not always 100%. The goal is to reduce the number of gun deaths, suggesting that if we can't get to 0 it's not worth doing is infantile thinking. In that case, why try to prevent anything at all if we can't get it down to 0?

Third Bolded: No, they don't state that more guns equals easier to hurt someone, it says more guns literally equals more people hurt. More people die the more guns there are in a society. Reducing the number of guns would decrease this amount.


More cars = more deaths. Yes, that is pretty obvious. So why won't gun advocates agree it's obviously the case with guns as well? But so long as we're on cars, we do a lot to mitigate car deaths. You have to pass both a written and driving test, get a license that is monitored by the state (and revoked or suspended for violations), you must purchase insurance against accidents, you must wear a seat belt, etc. We spend far more effort regulating automobiles than we do firearms.


And yes, how I perceive the data does. You obviously didn't read anything I posted, they give several legitimate specific laws we can pass to reduce the number of deaths. But more to the point, my perception of the data is that the less guns there are the less deaths we will see. You called that obvious. So what exactly am I not perceiving or misinterpreting?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OceanSpray

If your child is killing someone with a gun, the least of your worries should be about a gun and more about why that child was even thinking about killing someone with a gun. Moral of the story, raise your kid properly and make sure they understand right from wrong.

---

I think the primary concern of the person being murdered by your kid with a gun is the gun, not why they are being murdered by it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spliff(TONE)

Keep arguing that your kid deserves Secret Service level protection while at school. Really highlights your next level intelligence and pulse on reality.

---

Ex military is secret service level protection? But yeah, i lack intelligence...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joeyc77

Ill go even further. If your child kills more than one person, with or without your gun, you should be killed by stoning in the street.

---

Actually, that should be a good fate for all Trump supporters. And think how it would be if you bought stock in the stone and gravel industry?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

First Bolded: Yes solving those issues would reduce the number of gun deaths in this country. But so would reducing the amount of guns in the country. So why not do that?

Second Bolded: Of course they don't suggest it would result in 0 deaths, because preventative measures are not always 100%. The goal is to reduce the number of gun deaths, suggesting that if we can't get to 0 it's not worth doing is infantile thinking. In that case, why try to prevent anything at all if we can't get it down to 0?

Third Bolded: No, they don't state that more guns equals easier to hurt someone, it says more guns literally equals more people hurt. More people die the more guns there are in a society. Reducing the number of guns would decrease this amount.


More cars = more deaths. Yes, that is pretty obvious. So why won't gun advocates agree it's obviously the case with guns as well? But so long as we're on cars, we do a lot to mitigate car deaths. You have to pass both a written and driving test, get a license that is monitored by the state (and revoked or suspended for violations), you must purchase insurance against accidents, you must wear a seat belt, etc. We spend far more effort regulating automobiles than we do firearms.


And yes, how I perceive the data does. You obviously didn't read anything I posted, they give several legitimate specific laws we can pass to reduce the number of deaths. But more to the point, my perception of the data is that the less guns there are the less deaths we will see. You called that obvious. So what exactly am I not perceiving or misinterpreting?

Honestly, your arguments are the same rehashed platitudes I have to deal with every time I have this discussion. If we can't fundamentally agree that more guns will result in more gun deaths there's very little chance for a reconciliation or agreement, because we fundamentally believe in different realities.

---

Your solution is a federal ban on guns. I simply disagree with that. Your solution is not definitive.

More knives = more deaths by knives.

So if the moral if the story is more weapons = more deaths being a definitive solution, continue ranting about it. That doesn't make you correct. It's your preference.

More cars = more deaths by cars. Should we think about outlawing the amount of cars on the road? No. What we do instead is find ways to reduce the amount of deaths by cars because cars is a necessity.

You can find ways to strictly regulate guns and enforce gun laws that aren't being done now.

Guns in some states and areas are a necessity which is why I do NOT support a federal ban on guns. Until you've lived there and experience places in which police officers are not readily available so owning a gun is your only form of protection, you shouldn't be making definitive statements when you've mainly lived in cities.

The fact is, gun deaths will always occur. Reducing it is something that is bi-partisan. No one supporting gun rights support higher gun deaths. It's just a byproduct of what happens but it shouldn't circumvent the fact that there are millions of gun owners who use a gun to protect themselves and their family.

Your study is just raw data and then stating that more guns = more deaths. That's common sense. More alcohol = more alcoholics = more drunk driving = more sex. Is liquor being banned? Will anyone recommend it being banned federally? No, which is why there is a legal limit to consuming liquor.

You trying to equate more deaths because of X and trying to make a linear solution doesn't make you correct. It just means you're making a very obvious observation but not demonstrating an ideal solution.

We don't have to hash out this subject, then. Just say you want to ban guns, period. I disagree, end of story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OceanSpray

I'm referring to you claiming your solutions are definitive regarding gun laws in the country. I don't disagree with the raw data in face value because I've already stated that gun violence is an issue. But you have to break it down to suicides, mental illness, gang violence, etc., Solving these issues internally will decrease the amount of gun violence drastically. I'm not a fan of federally banning guns which you seem to be proposing (I assume) so if that's your solution, I simply disagree. Your sources doesn't suggest that there would be 0 deaths caused by guns if guns were banned. It just states that more guns = easier access to fatally hurt or kill someone which is quite obvious. More cars = more car deaths. Should we stop driving cars? How you perceive the data to support your narrative doesn't generate a definitive solution which you seem to think you have.

---

Government cutting funding for mental health greatly affects my area with more homeless mentally disturbed walking the streets. In California, they were dumping patients who ran out of federal aid on skid road. I also imagine those cuts affected the suicide rate and nuts running around with guns.

The government finds it too expensive to deal with them in their charge for smaller government.

Gang problems accelerated by the money and power garner by drugs.

Government is rock hard on not depriving them of their power by illegalizing drugs. Didn't have that attitude about re-legalizing booze which killed the Italian mafia and the violence and corruption they spread thru their neighborhood. Some of those clowns threw bombs and acid around. The first to have drive-by shootings with the same tragic results we see now.


The government isn't going to push funding mental health, which resulted in police being more involved with wellness checks. Or ending the drug war so to end gun violence have to be something else.

I think that is why a lot of people are pissed at these parties. Some have experience when the government was more pro-social and school program-oriented and saw all those things taken away and how they affect their community.

No, the government isn't going to be able to control this problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OceanSpray

Your solution is a federal ban on guns. I simply disagree with that. Your solution is not definitive.

More knives = more deaths by knives.

So if the moral if the story is more weapons = more deaths being a definitive solution, continue ranting about it. That doesn't make you correct. It's your preference.

More cars = more deaths by cars. Should we think about outlawing the amount of cars on the road? No. What we do instead is find ways to reduce the amount of deaths by cars because cars is a necessity.

You can find ways to strictly regulate guns and enforce gun laws that aren't being done now.

Guns in some states and areas are a necessity which is why I do NOT support a federal ban on guns. Until you've lived there and experience places in which police officers are not readily available so owning a gun is your only form of protection, you shouldn't be making definitive statements when you've mainly lived in cities.

The fact is, gun deaths will always occur. Reducing it is something that is bi-partisan. No one supporting gun rights support higher gun deaths. It's just a byproduct of what happens but it shouldn't circumvent the fact that there are millions of gun owners who use a gun to protect themselves and their family.

Your study is just raw data and then stating that more guns = more deaths. That's common sense. More alcohol = more alcoholics = more drunk driving = more sex. Is liquor being banned? Will anyone recommend it being banned federally? No, which is why there is a legal limit to consuming liquor.

You trying to equate more deaths because of X and trying to make a linear solution doesn't make you correct. It just means you're making a very obvious observation but not demonstrating an ideal solution.

We don't have to hash out this subject, then. Just say you want to ban guns, period. I disagree, end of story.

---

I don't want to ban guns, nor have I ever said that's what I want to do. I pointed out that doing so would absolutely reduce the number of gun deaths.

I'm saying we do need further regulation on the federal level. There are more laws we can pass to reduce the amount of guns in this country and to further restrict ownership of them. Would you support those?


I get that you disagree, but your continued use of infantile platitudes is troublesome.

Though I will say we've already made progress. You started out denying that more guns equals more deaths and now you think it's self evident.

Also, no the sources I provided don't just show raw data, they look at the effects of specific policies enacted. Yet again proof you didn't read them. If you are serious about this discussion, why not take the time to actually read the evidence?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blue6

Actually, that should be a good fate for all Trump supporters. And think how it would be if you bought stock in the stone and gravel industry?

---

Don't encourage my fantasy of stoning the Trump family. Not, Eric, he reminds too much of Fredo Corleone.

"I'm smart, I not stupid like everybody thinks I am. I can do things" could easily be his motto or "Duh, I am Eric"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by valade16

I don't want to ban guns, nor have I ever said that's what I want to do. I pointed out that doing so would absolutely reduce the number of gun deaths.

I'm saying we do need further regulation on the federal level. There are more laws we can pass to reduce the amount of guns in this country and to further restrict ownership of them. Would you support those?


I get that you disagree, but your continued use of infantile platitudes is troublesome.

Though I will say we've already made progress. You started out denying that more guns equals more deaths and now you think it's self evident.

---

Dude, I don't know how much more direct I can be. You're claiming I don't read the sources but your sources state the underlying assumption that more guns = more deaths which is why you ended up quoting that specific excerpt. Other sources point to stricter gun control laws which I've already agreed with... why do I need to mention it when I've stated it many times already?

Do you support a federal gun ban? Yes or no.

If you don't but want improved restrictions, I've already stated that I am in favor of that. Multiple times through multiple posts.

If you support a federal gun ban, meaning, no more legal ownership of guns, I am sorry but I don't support that.

Infantile platitudes? Yeah, I'm sorry I have to use them but it's because you're forcing me to repeat myself contentiously.

$1,000 to your paypal right now when you find me explicitly denying that more guns equal more deaths. You know, valade. Life lesson (and I am 100% positive you are older than me so I don't even want to say it), it's entirely possible for two people to agree on the root causes of something while disagreeing with the solution to best fix it. Your constant need to be correct when I've made many attempts to illustrate to you that it's okay for us to agree while disagreeing is something you need to work on, respectfully. And I vividly remember you admitting to your stubbornness months ago. Let's stop acting like that isn't coming to play here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WES445

Don't encourage my fantasy of stoning the Trump family. Not, Eric, he reminds too much of Fredo Corleone.

"I'm smart, I not stupid like everybody thinks I am. I can do things" could easily be his motto or "Duh, I am Eric"

---

Sorry. I would, however, throw out the first ceremonial stone. Personally, I see Donald drawn and quartered. Necessitating the use of at least Clydesdales or perhaps even bulldozers.