School Shooting in Knoxville

#752
#752
McDad said:
And to be fair, missed boat is my perception not necessarily true.
Missed boat #3
"Bulk" sales of guns is dangerous per Luther because of illegal possesion/activity with those guns. Multiple units of alcohol in my home is more dangerous if my kid wanted to illegally drink and drive. One beer is illegal but likely not life threatening to him or others.
Click to expand...
Sure, yes. As opposed to one serving in the fridge, it is unquestionably more dangerous.
 
#753
#753
allvol123 said:
Has the "he was a good kid" narrative begun?
Click to expand...
Yes and some crackhead on Facebook live on MLK has circulated a video saying there is a police conspiracy to kill this black kid and that he had a gun but the officer shot himself to further kill this kid for no reason....LOL
 
  • Like
Reactions: allvol123
#755
#755
RockyTop85 said:
Sure, yes. As opposed to one serving in the fridge, it is unquestionably more dangerous.
Click to expand...
So there's really the crux of it.

Responsible drinkers are no more dangerous than responsible gun owners. Forcing single serve only, or watered down beverages punishes Luther and his desire for a buzz even though alcohol leads to 80,000 deaths per year.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83 and hog88
#756
#756
McDad said:
You and I are a lot of like. I generally I hear about things for the 1st time on this forum as well. I haven't followed your points or your arguments. I'm not fully aware of the discussion you're having. So I'm not casting aspersions on your facts or the arguments (worn out or not) you are bringing. I'm asking you if you feel like your talking points are tired and worn out since you think others' points are?
Click to expand...
Tbh, I haven’t asserted anything here besides we have a gun violence problem and it warrants serious discussion without zero sum, absolutist stances, from either side. I saw earlier where one person asserted I’m a gun-grabbing left-wing nut job (or something of the sort) but I challenge them to find one instance where I’ve even advocated for changing laws or creating new ones. They won’t succeed because that’s not how I feel, so I know I’ve never suggested it. All I want is a legitimate information gathering and analysis on all fronts (gun ownership, gun violence, mental health, societal issues, etc) to form an informed diagnosis of the problems we face, and a discussion of possible solutions. Examine those solutions, let people weight in on why they would work, why they wouldn’t, the legality, and actually have a debate about it. You know, problem solving.

I’m under no impression that gabbing on here will solve anything, but what I see and hear here is a microcosm of why nothing gets done, ever. The right has clearly dug into their position as have some on the left.

If that’s an old, worn out talking point, then so be it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ndubvols and McDad
#758
#758
OHvol40 said:
Tbh, I haven’t asserted anything here besides we have a gun violence problem and it warrants serious discussion without zero sum, absolutist stances, from either side. I saw earlier where one person asserted I’m a gun-grabbing left-wing nut job (or something of the sort) but I challenge them to find one instance where I’ve even advocated for changing laws or creating new ones. They won’t succeed because that’s not how I feel, so I know I’ve never suggested it. All I want is a legitimate information gathering and analysis on all fronts (gun ownership, gun violence, mental health, societal issues, etc) to form an informed diagnosis of the problems we face, and a discussion of possible solutions. Examine those solutions, let people weight in on why they would work, why they wouldn’t, the legality, and actually have a debate about it. You know, problem solving.

I’m under no impression that gabbing on here will solve anything, but what I see and hear here is a microcosm of why nothing gets done, ever. The right has clearly dug into their position as have some on the left.

If that’s an old, worn out talking point, then so be it.
Click to expand...
A lot, and I mean a buttload, of devil's in the details with the approach in addressing the info you seek after it's gathered.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#759
#759
Just to lob this poop into the punch let's look at cities with with some pretty remarkably different homicide rates despite similarities in population. The highest rate on the low side is 9.0 while the lowest on the other is 16.28. The highest on the low side is 11.5 while the highest on the high side is 66.07(!).

San Antonio TX, (1.5m/8.5)/Philly PA, (1.5m/20.6)
Houston TX, (2.3m/11.5)/Chicago, IL , (2.7m/24.13)
El Paso TX, (688k/2.76)/DC, (693k/16.72)
Fort Worth TX, (873k/8.02), Columbus OH, (872/16.28)
Boston MA, (683k/8.35), Detroit MI, (671k/39.8)
Portland OR, (649k/3.7), Baltimore MA, (613k/55.77)
Mesa AZ, (492k/4.67), KC MO, (485k/30.93)
Lexington KY, (322k/9.0), St L MO, (310k/66.07)

Quite honestly I don't give a rotting rat's rectum about moving a nanometer in conceding any portion of gun freedom as it currently stands. There is absolutely, positively, irrefutably things going on with people (not to be in any way at all confused with inanimate objects) that are different in some places vs others. Find out what they are and get after them. Hells Bells, 5 of the low side cities are in TX/AZ so let's not even pretend there's any access to firearms driving the disparity, particularly since several on the high side are profoundly anti-gun.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NorthDallas40, hog88, Rickyvol77 and 1 other person
#760
#760
hndog609 said:
Just to lob this poop into the punch let's look at cities with with some pretty remarkably different homicide rates despite similarities in population. The highest rate on the low side is 9.0 while the lowest on the other is 16.28. The highest on the low side is 11.5 while the highest on the high side is 66.07(!).

San Antonio TX, (1.5m/8.5)/Philly PA, (1.5m/20.6)
Houston TX, (2.3m/11.5)/Chicago, IL , (2.7m/24.13)
El Paso TX, (688k/2.76)/DC, (693k/16.72)
Fort Worth TX, (873k/8.02), Columbus OH, (872/16.28)
Boston MA, (683k/8.35), Detroit MI, (671k/39.8)
Portland OR, (649k/3.7), Baltimore MA, (613k/55.77)
Mesa AZ, (492k/4.67), KC MO, (485k/30.93)
Lexington KY, (322k/9.0), St L MO, (310k/66.07)

Quite honestly I don't give a rotting rat's rectum about moving a nanometer in conceding any portion of gun freedom as it currently stands. There is absolutely, positively, irrefutably things going on with people (not to be in any way at all confused with inanimate objects) that are different in some places vs others. Find out what they are and get after them. Hells Bells, 5 of the low side cities are in TX/AZ so let's not even pretend there's any access to firearms driving the disparity, particularly since several on the high side are profoundly anti-gun.
Click to expand...
I would offer it's a people problem but that is a worn out company line (I think ;))
 
  • Like
Reactions: 82_VOL_83, NorthDallas40 and hndog609
#764
#764
hndog609 said:
Just to lob this poop into the punch let's look at cities with with some pretty remarkably different homicide rates despite similarities in population. The highest rate on the low side is 9.0 while the lowest on the other is 16.28. The highest on the low side is 11.5 while the highest on the high side is 66.07(!).

San Antonio TX, (1.5m/8.5)/Philly PA, (1.5m/20.6)
Houston TX, (2.3m/11.5)/Chicago, IL , (2.7m/24.13)
El Paso TX, (688k/2.76)/DC, (693k/16.72)
Fort Worth TX, (873k/8.02), Columbus OH, (872/16.28)
Boston MA, (683k/8.35), Detroit MI, (671k/39.8)
Portland OR, (649k/3.7), Baltimore MA, (613k/55.77)
Mesa AZ, (492k/4.67), KC MO, (485k/30.93)
Lexington KY, (322k/9.0), St L MO, (310k/66.07)

Quite honestly I don't give a rotting rat's rectum about moving a nanometer in conceding any portion of gun freedom as it currently stands. There is absolutely, positively, irrefutably things going on with people (not to be in any way at all confused with inanimate objects) that are different in some places vs others. Find out what they are and get after them. Hells Bells, 5 of the low side cities are in TX/AZ so let's not even pretend there's any access to firearms driving the disparity, particularly since several on the high side are profoundly anti-gun.
Click to expand...
Gee what other factors all come into play on the right column? That seems to be the issue to be addressed
 
#765
#765
McDad said:
So there's really the crux of it.

Responsible drinkers are no more dangerous than responsible gun owners. Forcing single serve only, or watered down beverages punishes Luther and his desire for a buzz even though alcohol leads to 80,000 deaths per year.
Click to expand...

Ok, but I don’t think it requires a contradiction for Luther to avoid some laughable outcome when faced with that analogy.

For both issues, the most effective measure would be some Thanos style snap of the fingers that results in no more alcohol and no more guns. But that’s too draconian. No reasonable person would find that to be an acceptable imposition on property rights or self-determination.

One serving per sale is probably a bit closer to “no alcohol period,” than one gun per month is, just in terms of societal norms.

It’s certainly not equivalent to the potential for harm. You can still kill a bunch of people with a gun purchased at a one-off sale. The risk of any harm from a single serving of alcohol is infinitesimal.

As you go less restrictive on that quantity axis to try to make them equivalent, the nexus between the quantity sold at one go and the harm breaks down, depending on context. 7 oz of booze consumed in an hour or two at a bar, your best judgement is probably not to drive home, but 45 oz of booze bought to take home and sit on a shelf between single servings doesn’t necessarily correlate to a higher frequency of death.

So running it through that same rubric of looking for a less invasive, more efficient restriction would produce a different outcome and still be consistent, IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#766
#766
OHvol40 said:
Tbh, I haven’t asserted anything here besides we have a gun violence problem and it warrants serious discussion without zero sum, absolutist stances, from either side. I saw earlier where one person asserted I’m a gun-grabbing left-wing nut job (or something of the sort) but I challenge them to find one instance where I’ve even advocated for changing laws or creating new ones. They won’t succeed because that’s not how I feel, so I know I’ve never suggested it. All I want is a legitimate information gathering and analysis on all fronts (gun ownership, gun violence, mental health, societal issues, etc) to form an informed diagnosis of the problems we face, and a discussion of possible solutions. Examine those solutions, let people weight in on why they would work, why they wouldn’t, the legality, and actually have a debate about it. You know, problem solving.

I’m under no impression that gabbing on here will solve anything, but what I see and hear here is a microcosm of why nothing gets done, ever. The right has clearly dug into their position as have some on the left.

If that’s an old, worn out talking point, then so be it.
Click to expand...

We have a problem with indiscriminate violence. The solution starts with finding out why that is, not with ignoring that and focusing on the tools.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol, 82_VOL_83, Rickyvol77 and 1 other person
#768
#768
hog88 said:
We have a problem with indiscriminate violence. The solution starts with finding out why that is, not with ignoring that and focusing on the tools.
Click to expand...
Rich folks running around the swanky parts of your town having gunfights like it’s the OK Corral?

What about the middle class parts?
 
#769
#769
RockyTop85 said:
Ok, but I don’t think it requires a contradiction for Luther to avoid some laughable outcome when faced with that analogy.

For both issues, the most effective measure would be some Thanos style snap of the fingers that results in no more alcohol and no more guns. But that’s too draconian. No reasonable person would find that to be an acceptable imposition on property rights or self-determination.

One serving per sale is probably a bit closer to “no alcohol period,” than one gun per month is, just in terms of societal norms.

It’s certainly not equivalent to the potential for harm. You can still kill a bunch of people with a gun purchased at a one-off sale. The risk of any harm from a single serving of alcohol is infinitesimal.

As you go less restrictive on that quantity axis to try to make them equivalent, the nexus between the quantity sold at one go and the harm breaks down, depending on context. 7 oz of booze consumed in an hour or two at a bar, your best judgement is probably not to drive home, but 45 oz of booze bought to take home and sit on a shelf between single servings doesn’t necessarily correlate to a higher frequency of death.

So running it through that same rubric of looking for a less invasive, more efficient restriction would produce a different outcome and still be consistent, IMO.
Click to expand...
It isn't equivalent. You're right. Alcohol is more dangerous resulting in more deaths, destruction of property, health consequences, domestic abuse, assaults, and birth defects than guns per year, correct?
 
  • Like
Reactions: volfanhill, hog88 and NorthDallas40
#770
#770
OHvol40 said:
Tbh, I haven’t asserted anything here besides we have a gun violence problem and it warrants serious discussion without zero sum, absolutist stances, from either side. I saw earlier where one person asserted I’m a gun-grabbing left-wing nut job (or something of the sort) but I challenge them to find one instance where I’ve even advocated for changing laws or creating new ones. They won’t succeed because that’s not how I feel, so I know I’ve never suggested it. All I want is a legitimate information gathering and analysis on all fronts (gun ownership, gun violence, mental health, societal issues, etc) to form an informed diagnosis of the problems we face, and a discussion of possible solutions. Examine those solutions, let people weight in on why they would work, why they wouldn’t, the legality, and actually have a debate about it. You know, problem solving.

I’m under no impression that gabbing on here will solve anything, but what I see and hear here is a microcosm of why nothing gets done, ever. The right has clearly dug into their position as have some on the left.

If that’s an old, worn out talking point, then so be it.
Click to expand...
This is the result of your continued focus on the tool while ignoring the individual wielding the tool. We will also have permit less carry in 20 states by years end with at least 3 more states considering the same legislation. So by all means keep talking it’s having an impact!

More Than A Dozen States Are Trying To Nullify Federal Gun Control
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77
#771
#771
NorthDallas40 said:
This is the result of your continued focus on the tool while ignoring the individual wielding the tool. We will also have permit less carry in 20 states by years end with at least 3 more states considering the same legislation. So by all means keep talking it’s having an impact!

More Than A Dozen States Are Trying To Nullify Federal Gun Control
Click to expand...
Not sure what anything I had to say has to do with your article, but if you’re happy then I’m happy for you. Congrats!
 
#772
#772
OHvol40 said:
Not sure what anything I had to say has to do with your article, but if you’re happy then I’m happy for you. Congrats!
Click to expand...
Of course you’re “not sure”

“... we have a gun violence problem”

Like I said by all means keep that narrative going it’s working great.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#773
#773
McDad said:
It isn't equivalent. You're right. Alcohol is more dangerous resulting in more deaths, destruction of property, health consequences, domestic abuse, assaults, and birth defects than guns per year, correct?
Click to expand...

Sure. But risks of those outcomes attach after a certain quantity is consumed. That quantity is far greater than 1 serving.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top