Four year old shot dead in road rage shooting

[normiss 622]

Maybe because it is currently TOO easy for nutters to obtain weapons?
Why would you oppose proving you're not insane?
Why do you hate dead "babies" but LOVE dead school children?

[turtlespeed 212]

normiss

Maybe because it is currently TOO easy for nutters to obtain weapons?
Why would you oppose proving you're not insane?
Why do you hate dead "babies" but LOVE dead school children?

Why do you accept one as necessary and the other as not so much?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[normiss 622]

I don't.

[billvon 2,394]

>Then why does it seem like you would advocate taking steps to make it more
>difficult to acquire the tools needed to do that effectively?

1) I do not think that a gun is the only way to defend yourself.

2) No right in the US is unlimited. They all have restrictions intended to prevent encroachment on other's rights.

3) I would support a new gun law that significantly reduced the odds of accidental shootings, or intentional criminal shootings, while having zero or minimal impact on those who want to use guns legally. I would be against a new gun law that had a minimal impact on gun misuse but a large impact on those who want to use guns safely.

So no, I don't want to make it more difficult for people to defend themselves. I want them to be able to both defend themselves AND be reasonably sure they will not be killed through the malice, incompetence or carelessness of others.

[rushmc 18]

billvon

>Then why does it seem like you would advocate taking steps to make it more
>difficult to acquire the tools needed to do that effectively?

1) I do not think that a gun is the only way to defend yourself.

2) No right in the US is unlimited. They all have restrictions intended to prevent encroachment on other's rights.

3) I would support a new gun law that significantly reduced the odds of accidental shootings, or intentional criminal shootings, while having zero or minimal impact on those who want to use guns legally. I would be against a new gun law that had a minimal impact on gun misuse but a large impact on those who want to use guns safely.

So no, I don't want to make it more difficult for people to defend themselves. I want them to be able to both defend themselves AND be reasonably sure they will not be killed through the malice, incompetence or carelessness of others.

Bill
I do not think too many would argue with you
I know I would not

but

Can you describe what you think might accomplish what you posted?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[turtlespeed 212]

billvon

>Then why does it seem like you would advocate taking steps to make it more
>difficult to acquire the tools needed to do that effectively?

1) I do not think that a gun is the only way to defend yourself.

2) No right in the US is unlimited. They all have restrictions intended to prevent encroachment on other's rights.

3) I would support a new gun law that significantly reduced the odds of accidental shootings, or intentional criminal shootings, while having zero or minimal impact on those who want to use guns legally. I would be against a new gun law that had a minimal impact on gun misuse but a large impact on those who want to use guns safely.

So no, I don't want to make it more difficult for people to defend themselves. I want them to be able to both defend themselves AND be reasonably sure they will not be killed through the malice, incompetence or carelessness of others.

I don't believe this society, as it is, will allow that.
Something fundamental would have to change.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[normiss 622]

Like gun nuts actually wanting to have a sensible discussion over some steps that could reduce the killings.

[turtlespeed 212]

normiss

Like gun nuts actually wanting to have a sensible discussion over some steps that could reduce the killings.

That, and the ways we tolerate gangs and criminals.

Another is THE far right and left being so FAR right and left that it is almost comical, but because it is so tragic, it's sad.

There is more.

I'm really not against a competency test to be able to own firearms.

Pass a safety awareness test, along with operational awareness tests, and maybe a mental acuity test.

But at the end of the day, the weapons should ultimately belong to the government so they can issue the proper guns to the proper people.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[kallend 1,623]

turtlespeed

***Like gun nuts actually wanting to have a sensible discussion over some steps that could reduce the killings.

That, and the ways we tolerate gangs and criminals.

Another is THE far right and left being so FAR right and left that it is almost comical, but because it is so tragic, it's sad.

There is more.

I'm really not against a competency test to be able to own firearms.

Pass a safety awareness test, along with operational awareness tests, and maybe a mental acuity test.

But at the end of the day, the weapons should ultimately belong to the government so they can issue the proper guns to the proper people.

Hmmm - nice combination of the slippery slope with the false dichotomy and reductio ad absurdum fallacies.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[turtlespeed 212]

kallend

******Like gun nuts actually wanting to have a sensible discussion over some steps that could reduce the killings.

That, and the ways we tolerate gangs and criminals.

Another is THE far right and left being so FAR right and left that it is almost comical, but because it is so tragic, it's sad.

There is more.

I'm really not against a competency test to be able to own firearms.

Pass a safety awareness test, along with operational awareness tests, and maybe a mental acuity test.

But at the end of the day, the weapons should ultimately belong to the government so they can issue the proper guns to the proper people.

Hmmm - nice combination of the slippery slope with the false dichotomy and reductio ad absurdum fallacies.



Ok, I admit the last was a jape.

I really don't have an issue with a competency test. I think if you own a weapon, you should be trained to use it. It worked for driving, didn't it?

Similar rules apply. No license needed if you only use it on a farm.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[rushmc 18]

normiss

Maybe because it is currently TOO easy for nutters to obtain weapons?
Why would you oppose proving you're not insane?
Why do you hate dead "babies" but LOVE dead school children?

Hope we can move toward saving more lives. Taking on the nutters with non nutters with weapons is a good first step

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/23/poll-concealed-carry-equals-less-crime/

Quote

According to Gallup, 56 percent of Americans answered in the affirmative when asked if the U.S. would be safer if “more Americans were allowed to carry concealed weapons if they passed a criminal background check and training course.” 41 percent of respondents said more concealed carry would make the country less safe.

So, you are in the minority it seems

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kallend 1,623]

rushmc

***Maybe because it is currently TOO easy for nutters to obtain weapons?
Why would you oppose proving you're not insane?
Why do you hate dead "babies" but LOVE dead school children?

Hope we can move toward saving more lives. Taking on the nutters with non nutters with weapons is a good first step

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/23/poll-concealed-carry-equals-less-crime/

Quote

According to Gallup, 56 percent of Americans answered in the affirmative when asked if the U.S. would be safer if “more Americans were allowed to carry concealed weapons if they passed a criminal background check and training course.” 41 percent of respondents said more concealed carry would make the country less safe.

So, you are in the minority it seems

Just like climate change deniers are in a minority. A much smaller minority, in fact.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Darius11 12]

billvon

>So you are saying that everyone here with their own self protection hand gun
>will be shot by it?

Nope. Just that their odds of being shot went up significantly when they bought that gun.

But better to be carried by six than judged by twelve.

This way of thinking to me is always just crazy, My chances of falling off a bike increase when i buy a bike, the chances of me cutting my self with a knife increase when i bring a knife in to the house, and the chances of me getting in to a car accident while driving increase when i start to drive etc etc etc forever.


I agree with your other post, yes i would like to reduce gun violence yet not restrict lawful gun owners, the problem is there is no mechanism to do such a thing. So the option is do we take away rights for the Illusion of safety?

My answer is no, I will not give up freedom for safety i already feel like that pendulum has goon too far.

Another point that always gets dropped, yes i am worried about crazy people how ever i am more worried about tyranny just because it hasn't happened in your life time doesn't mean it will never happen.

not to mention such things have happened, the government will come and get you and kill you and your kids if they want. They have done it in the past not that long ago.

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[turtlespeed 212]

kallend

******Maybe because it is currently TOO easy for nutters to obtain weapons?
Why would you oppose proving you're not insane?
Why do you hate dead "babies" but LOVE dead school children?

Hope we can move toward saving more lives. Taking on the nutters with non nutters with weapons is a good first step

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/10/23/poll-concealed-carry-equals-less-crime/

Quote

According to Gallup, 56 percent of Americans answered in the affirmative when asked if the U.S. would be safer if “more Americans were allowed to carry concealed weapons if they passed a criminal background check and training course.” 41 percent of respondents said more concealed carry would make the country less safe.

So, you are in the minority it seems

Just like climate change deniers are in a minority. A much smaller minority, in fact.

I suppose hat would depend on how you do the math.
41% is not just like anything but 41%

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 2,394]

>Something fundamental would have to change.

Very first step is to accurately understand the problem. This means allowing CDC investigations into gun deaths without threatening to yank their funding if such studies are begun.

[billvon 2,394]

>So the option is do we take away rights for the Illusion of safety?

No - we take away some rights for actual safety, even if the odds are low that they will cause a problem.

You can jump through a cloud 999 times out of 1000 and not hit an airplane. We still outlaw it in most cases for the risk it poses.

You can drive home just over the BAC limit and, 99 times out of 100, make it home safely. It's still illegal to drive drunk.

Most people can teach themselves how to drive a car, maintain it safely and make sure they don't hit anyone. We still require a license, registration and insurance.

All the above are losses of rights. We pass laws that require the above to protect the rights of OTHER people - like the pedestrian you didn't see because you were too drunk to drive and operate your radio at the same time.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

billvon

>Something fundamental would have to change.

Very first step is to accurately understand the problem. This means allowing CDC investigations into gun deaths without threatening to yank their funding if such studies are begun.

Well, the second thing would have to be that the studies be objective and unbiased. You posted 3 such studies in another thread. All 3 have serious questions about their validity.

The reason the CDC was barred back in the 90s was because they were clearly looking to find reasons and excuses to regulate guns.

The then head of CDC was also a member of the board of directors of the Brady group (formerly Handgun Control Inc, now the Violence Policy Center).
Brady had been derailed in the 96 midterms. They had gotten the Brady Bill (version 1) passed, along with the "Assault Weapons" ban. And in the November elections, many of the lawmakers who voted for those laws lost. Gun control wasn't the only reason for this, but it was a big one.
With their legislative agenda derailed (look up "Brady 2" to see what they wanted in the future), they looked for other ways to get what they wanted.

They tried the "Public Health" route. The director said (in effect) that since they lost the ability to legislate gun control, they'd conduct studies that would show guns to be a "health menace". He had already decided what the studies would show.

And the CDC was never banned from doing research. The language in the Dickey Amendment simply says “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”

But because their agenda was to promote gun control, they saw that as a "ban" on their research.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[mistercwood 287]

wolfriverjoe

And the CDC was never banned from doing research. The language in the Dickey Amendment simply says “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”

But because their agenda was to promote gun control, they saw that as a "ban" on their research.

Bit of a Catch 22 there isn't it, though? As a hypothetical: Let's presume the CDC was actually going to be impartial in this scenario. They do their study, and let's say the study objectively concludes that guns (in their current mode of availability) are causing more harm than good.

So now it could be argued that the conclusion alone (without any additional recommendations) would be "promoting" gun control. At which point there's now some explaining to do about the funding that was inadvertently used to do a thing it's now expressly not allowed to do.

I get the concern that there was an existing bias for what results would come from CDC research. However, the language for the Dicky Amendment you've quoted in and of itself shows a clear bias - that it would be impossible for the CDC to objectively reach the conclusion that guns are a health concern.

It's no different to people saying the NRA are *only* about putting firearms in the hands of as many people as possible at any cost - it's not true, and prevents meaningful discourse.

IMHO

You are playing chicken with a planet - you can't dodge and planets don't blink. Act accordingly.

[billvon 2,394]

>And the CDC was never banned from doing research. The language in the
>Dickey Amendment simply says “None of the funds made available for injury
>prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may
>be used to advocate or promote gun control.”

And then their funding was cut by exactly the amount that their research into gun violence cost. The directive was quite clear.

My point remains. You cannot make good decisions without good information. Allowing the CDC to study the problem OBJECTIVELY (i.e. no "we cut your funding if you claim that guns present a risk") gives us at least some of that information.

[turtlespeed 212]

billvon

>And the CDC was never banned from doing research. The language in the
>Dickey Amendment simply says “None of the funds made available for injury
>prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may
>be used to advocate or promote gun control.”

And then their funding was cut by exactly the amount that their research into gun violence cost. The directive was quite clear.

My point remains. You cannot make good decisions without good information. Allowing the CDC to study the problem OBJECTIVELY (i.e. no "we cut your funding if you claim that guns present a risk") gives us at least some of that information.

Why do people keep embellishing the accidental deaths as gun violence?

If a guy accidentally drives off a bridge, is it span violence? Car violence? Road violence?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[wmw999 2,120]

If someone drives off a bridge, it's generally called a vehicle accident or incident.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[turtlespeed 212]

wmw999

If someone drives off a bridge, it's generally called a vehicle accident or incident.

Wendy P.

So why, if an accident is an accident, do people refer to stupid people leaving a gun out to be found by a child as gun violence, other than to inflate it to incite emotional responses?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[normiss 622]

Seriously?
Come on man, you're a LOT smarter than that.
I think ......

[turtlespeed 212]

normiss

Seriously?
Come on man, you're a LOT smarter than that.
I think ......

So you are saying I'm right. It is about inflating the emotional response.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[normiss 622]

Not quite, I'm saying that's what you're doing when you try to compare a common item with a deadly weapon.
They're pretty incomparable.