Another Mass Shooting - Philly Fireworks

[Vol8188]

I agree, it is a conundrum. It requires serious conversation and debate about legalities, practicalities, compromises, hard lines, and creative solutions. In this country, we can’t seem to pull ourselves together to have those serious conversations, everyone is so dug in, divided, and angry.

The left is very dug in on the idea that this is a gun problem. Yet the data doesn’t support that. So how can we have a rational and reasonable conversation from there?

 

[KB5252]

I agree, it is a conundrum. It requires serious conversation and debate about legalities, practicalities, compromises, hard lines, and creative solutions. In this country, we can’t seem to pull ourselves together to have those serious conversations, everyone is so dug in, divided, and angry.

I personally do not trust government, they have proven themselves unrestrained. I have also witnessed how easily the government can politicize the investigative and in some cases enforcing agencies. I don't see a way the government can be trusted to be judicious enough to be given a further expansion of power like that. I put the odds of it not being abused near zero.

I want people to be safe too. I just don't think expanding government powers is the answer. Particularly when the vast majority of gun violence is taking place in areas where they are restricting police interaction with the public and criminals.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

We don’t need more laws. We need to get rid of liberal prosecutors that aren’t punishing violent offenders and legislators that push back on closing leaky borders. Gangs, fentanyl, and pain med addictions are far bigger problems than law abiding citizens having access to scary weapons.

 

[hog88]

The left is very dug in on the idea that this is a gun problem. Yet the data doesn’t support that. So how can we have a rational and reasonable conversation from there?

They can't have a reasonable conversation because they would have to admit their entire belief system is flawed.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

I personally do not trust government, they have proven themselves unrestrained. I have also witnessed how easily the government can politicize the investigative and in some cases enforcing agencies. I don't see a way the government can be trusted to be judicious enough to be given a further expansion of power like that. I put the odds of it not being abused near zero.

I want people to be safe too. I just don't think expanding government powers is the answer. Particularly when the vast majority of fun violence is taking place in areas where they are restricting police interaction with the public and criminals.

Which is exactly why red flag laws are a bad idea. Look at what they’ve done by using the DOJ as a political weapon. Look at what they’ve done with the BS impeachment efforts. The left can’t be trusted with laws that let them grab guns. They’ll compromise the intent again.

 

[hndog609]

I agree, it is a conundrum. It requires serious conversation and debate about legalities, practicalities, compromises, hard lines, and creative solutions. In this country, we can’t seem to pull ourselves together to have those serious conversations, everyone is so dug in, divided, and angry.

A lot (most? damn near all?) of it comes down to trust. Let's assume for the moment that a strong 2A person would believe YOU, personally, when addressing what you think might be things to consider regarding "reasonable" firearm intervention by the government. Why would they believe others on your side could be trusted? What would become of the new precedents under different administrations down the line?

When it comes to any Right or freedom just how high should someone's trust level be in ceding any of it to .gov? I'm not the biggest poll guy but to put some kind of face on what I'm talking about this goes back to 1972.

Trust in Government

The HIGHEST mark for "great deal of trust" is
24% for domestic problems in Oct '01.
28% a couple times for the executive branch
And for the real "WTF are you kidding me" 13% a few times for the legislative branch.

Let me put some real emphasis on that last one. On this list of Gallup polling the lowest number for people saying their trust in the lawmaking branch of the government is "not very much" stands at 22% all the way back in '72. Since 2010 the lowest % is 37 and twice been as high as half. That's what you're working with here.

 

[LouderVol]

That's not common sense. If there were a ban on assault rifles (no new ones, no resales), their numbers would gradually shrink over time, if sold on the black market their price would be out of reach for many (especially young troubled men), and those young troubled men would not be able to acquire newly produced ones. That's. Common. Sense.

Criminals are young troubled men, and they have no issue getting weapons. Sometimes even the government gives it to them.

 

[Vol8188]

That's not common sense. If there were a ban on assault rifles (no new ones, no resales), their numbers would gradually shrink over time, if sold on the black market their price would be out of reach for many (especially young troubled men), and those young troubled men would not be able to acquire newly produced ones. That's. Common. Sense.

We’ve been there. Homicide rates were worse at that time. Rifles kill 200 or less a year. Rifles are not the problem

 

[LouderVol]

So you start by conceding it would still happen you just rationalize hoping it won’t happen as often.

The numbers of weapons used in these events compared to already in circulation is already infinitesimally small so the likely outcome isn’t changed.

All law abiding citizens are needlessly punished for likely no change in outcome. And their chosen means to defend themselves is needlessly limited.

That’s common sense backed up by data on arms in circulation today. Not interested one damn bit. So if you want it get after changing the constitution or stfu cat lady.

When our cops faced automatic weapons and heavy armor, the common sense response was to up arm our cops. The reasoning was it wasnt safe to face bad guys with less than what the bad guys have.

But now that citizens face the same threat it's common sense to disarm the citizens? To ensure our citizens have less than the bad guys, making citizens less safe? It's acceptable for citizens to face more risk than the cops do. The same cops they want to defund

 

[NorthDallas40]

When our cops faced automatic weapons and heavy armor, the common sense response was to up arm our cops. The reasoning was it wasnt safe to face bad guys with less than what the bad guys have.

But now that citizens face the same threat it's common sense to disarm the citizens? To ensure our citizens have less than the bad guys, making citizens less safe? It's acceptable for citizens to face more risk than the cops do. The same cops they want to defund

Yep. They can’t even maintain some consistency in their stupidity

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

And your proof for that is????

I admit they will likely continue to some degree since there are so many of those stupid things in circulation, but they will likely lessen over time.

What's the argument for why such a ban would have no effect? Most of the most recent mass shootings were with recently acquired AR-15s by late teen/early 20-something men. That demographic would have a hard(er) time getting them if there were a ban.

Mall Shooting Shocks Denmark on a Joyful Summer Weekend

Oslo Pride organizers cancel a parade after a gunman kills 2 and wounds 10

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

That's not common sense. If there were a ban on assault rifles (no new ones, no resales), their numbers would gradually shrink over time, if sold on the black market their price would be out of reach for many (especially young troubled men), and those young troubled men would not be able to acquire newly produced ones. That's. Common. Sense.

toxic masculinity

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

That's not common sense. If there were a ban on assault rifles (no new ones, no resales), their numbers would gradually shrink over time, if sold on the black market their price would be out of reach for many (especially young troubled men), and those young troubled men would not be able to acquire newly produced ones. That's. Common. Sense.

Have you heard of CNC machines?

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Leftist=anything long black and scary.........that goes bang

What?

 

[OHvol40]

First step in having serious conversations is to stop with the "ban" talk. Doors close in your face when the first thing proposed is always a ban or more restrictions.

Creating conditions before a conversation is even started is unproductive. If you wish for that to be your contribution to the discussion, then so be it, but not having the conversation based on preconceived notions doesn’t get anything done, and is not effective problem solving.

 

[hog88]

Creating conditions before a conversation is even started is unproductive. If you wish for that to be your contribution to the discussion, then so be it, but not having the conversation based on preconceived notions doesn’t get anything done, and is not effective problem solving.

Thanks for confirmation of my point.

 

[OHvol40]

A lot (most? damn near all?) of it comes down to trust. Let's assume for the moment that a strong 2A person would believe YOU, personally, when addressing what you think might be things to consider regarding "reasonable" firearm intervention by the government. Why would they believe others on your side could be trusted? What would become of the new precedents under different administrations down the line?

When it comes to any Right or freedom just how high should someone's trust level be in ceding any of it to .gov? I'm not the biggest poll guy but to put some kind of face on what I'm talking about this goes back to 1972.

Trust in Government

The HIGHEST mark for "great deal of trust" is
24% for domestic problems in Oct '01.
28% a couple times for the executive branch
And for the real "WTF are you kidding me" 13% a few times for the legislative branch.

Let me put some real emphasis on that last one. On this list of Gallup polling the lowest number for people saying their trust in the lawmaking branch of the government is "not very much" stands at 22% all the way back in '72. Since 2010 the lowest % is 37 and twice been as high as half. That's what you're working with here.

I don’t disagree. Trust has been lost. Divisions are as stark as ever. So how can that possibly be regained? How can we hear each other’s concerns and perspectives without angst? How can we move people off of obstructionism and absolutism and into the space of debate and compromise?

 

[LouderVol]

He believes government is very trustworthy, and also our last president was a wannabe dictator who almost overthrew the government.

And that guns are weapons of war, but unable to overthrow the government. The same government almost overthrown by zip ties and cardboard signs.

 

[LouderVol]

I agree, it is a conundrum. It requires serious conversation and debate about legalities, practicalities, compromises, hard lines, and creative solutions. In this country, we can’t seem to pull ourselves together to have those serious conversations, everyone is so dug in, divided, and angry.

Yes. Because one side has given up a whole bunch already in the name of compromise despite an enumerated right. Which is why the SC has been ruling as it has.

And the other side is angry because their misplaced beliefs will always believe just one more rational and reasonable encroachment will do the trick.

If you want a discussion start with actual hard, definable, goals and stats as what would be acceptable. The anti2A crowd refuses to get specific. Why would the 2A crowd agree to unspecific terms as defined by people self recognized as ignorant on the matter?

 

[C-south]

Yes. Because one side has given up a whole bunch already in the name of compromise despite an enumerated right. Which is why the SC has been ruling as it has.

And the other side is angry because their misplaced beliefs will always believe just one more rational and reasonable encroachment will do the trick.

If you want a discussion start with actual hard, definable, goals and stats as what would be acceptable. The anti2A crowd refuses to get specific. Why would the 2A crowd agree to unspecific terms as defined by people self recognized as ignorant on the matter?

We have to vote for it before we can see what’s in it. That worked out great last time.

 

[hndog609]

I don’t disagree. Trust has been lost. Divisions are as stark as ever. So how can that possibly be regained? How can we hear each other’s concerns and perspectives without angst? How can we move people off of obstructionism and absolutism and into the space of debate and compromise?

That's a big question and it would be silly to even try to assume easy answers. I'll throw out a few ideas I think could be useful.

Make personal responsibility a big deal again. This is something intrinsic with the very idea of trust and it needs to start top down. Personal ownership would be nice but if it has to come across as "held accountable" then so be it. This needs to quickly become "If they're held to this standard you can damn well believe that includes the rest of you." for the whole population.

The above segues (or maybe is bundled with but I still want to separate it) into the ever popular "whataboutism". It isn't that there is whataboutism but rather how easy it is to point out. This side does X, that side does X, and you get "Well, whatabout!?" from both sides. The problem is both sides are right. If whatever X was shouldn't have been happening roll some heads the first time. How the **** is anybody going to trust anything when the viable political answer to "Is this wrong?" is "Well, they're doing it.".

Whatever it is that makes moving into politics to amass a fortune a viable career path needs dragged out back and shot in the head.

Just a couple cents worth of input.

 

[82_VOL_83]

His question was based on the assumption that we have a massive problem with guns. That's why he asked. If we did, it would show up in the data.

I agree. Repeated lies become considered the truth. Like the idea that we have a massive gun problem. Or that these issues are worsening.

You're engaging in no further exchanges regarding this because you realize the truth is not in your favor. The truth is that there is no correlation between gun ownership and homicide. The truth is that rifles of all types (including the scary black ones) are responsible for less deaths than Tylenol.

Don't feed the troll. He has been and always will be a troll.

 

[luthervol]

First step in having serious conversations is to stop with the "ban" talk. Doors close in your face when the first thing proposed is always a ban or more restrictions.

Maybe a better first step is to not close the door in someone's face when you hear the words "ban" or "more restrictions".

I

 

[82_VOL_83]

The left is very dug in on the idea that this is a gun problem. Yet the data doesn’t support that. So how can we have a rational and reasonable conversation from there?

The left is dug in on this as a vote buying tool. Nothing more. If they were really concerned with saving lives tobacco and alcohol would be #1 in their sites followed by fast food.

 

[hog88]

Maybe a better first step is to not close the door in someone's face when you hear the words "ban" or "more restrictions".

I

With you and OH the conversation begins and ends with bans and more restrictions so there isn’t a reason to open the door to conversation with people like you.