BAN GARLIC

[Coreece 190]

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

I just can not imagine explaining to a room full of grieving parents that the increased number of first graders killed because the murderer used an assault weapon is statistically insignificant.

Perhaps you'd be more comfortable explaining the dangers of prohibition in auditoriums across the country full of grieving parents whose children were killed by drunk drivers.

[brenthutch 383]

32 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

The battle against feral hogs in America has nothing on the Great Australian Emu War.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emu_War

That is great, thank you. I learned something interesting today, the same cannot be said for my ten year old daughter who is reading over my shoulder...horrified.

Edited August 7, 2019 by brenthutch

[gowlerk 1,905]

24 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

That is great, thank you. I learned something interesting today, the same cannot be said for my ten year old daughter who is reading over my shoulder...horrified.

That is one of the ways young girls end up deciding to go through a vegetarian phase. Lasted about 10 years for mine. She saw a butcher shop with hanging sides of beef.

[JoeWeber 2,297]

1 hour ago, Coreece said:

Perhaps you'd be more comfortable explaining the dangers of prohibition in auditoriums across the country full of grieving parents whose children were killed by drunk drivers.

Ignoring that those parents might not consider prohibition a bad thing, you're just struggling to find an equivalency. Now, if some asshole charged into first grade shaking a six pack of Bud Tall Boys and managed to waste some innocent kids with the foam you just might have a point.

[Coreece 190]

3 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

4 hours ago, Coreece said:

Perhaps you'd be more comfortable explaining the dangers of prohibition in auditoriums across the country full of grieving parents whose children were killed by drunk drivers.

Ignoring that those parents might not consider prohibition a bad thing, you're just struggling to find an equivalency. Now, if some asshole charged into first grade shaking a six pack of Bud Tall Boys and managed to waste some innocent kids with the foam you just might have a point.

Or, maybe you're just struggling to see it.  Your argument is essentially the whole "think of the children" thing.  So think of the children.  Thousands have died in drunk driving accidents and prohibition could possibly save lives.  It may or may not work, and could present even more risk elsewhere, but if it's all about the children and your inability to console grieving parents, then why not just do it?

And BTW, let's say we ban assault weapons.   Do you really think that that would get you off the hook with the parents or that it would make things any easier for you when these types of shootings persist?  I mean what are you going to say, "Nothing to see here folks, this was expected. They told us this might happen, but don't worry, the overall numbers will work out in our favor by the end of the year, you just wait.  Don't feel bad - we saved lives today!"

[JoeWeber 2,297]

2 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Or, maybe you're just struggling to see it.  Your argument is essentially the whole "think of the children" thing.  So think of the children.  Thousands have died in drunk driving accidents and prohibition could possibly save lives.  It may or may not work, and could present even more risk elsewhere, but if it's all about the children and your inability to console grieving parents, then why not just do it?

And BTW, let's say we ban assault weapons.   Do you really think that that would get you off the hook with the parents or that it would make things any easier for you when these types of shootings persist?  I mean what are you going to say, "Nothing to see here folks, this was expected. They told us this might happen, but don't worry, the overall numbers will work out in our favor by the end of the year, you just wait.  Don't feel bad - we saved lives today!"

Coreece, that's silly. The children are already dead. I'm thinking about how to be honest with the people living a new fresh hell. We'll never be fully off the hook for this insanity, if that is, you believe we are on the hook. But you might be able to look some poor horror ravaged mother in the eye and say you tried. You could say that we tried our best to get these weapons out of the hands of people who might do this sort of thing. We're sorry but we are trying and we wont stop.

You're a committed Christian. What could you say?

 

 

[Coreece 190]

8 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Coreece, that's silly.

Exactly.  You don't have to make decisions based on some imaginary hypothetical career as a grief counselor.  (please don't tell me you're actually a grief counselor)

Just be rational and look at the data.  I posted a link to a study that suggests banning assault rifles may not be the best course of action at this time, and that perhaps collectively following a set of 3 different laws may be the way to go, but you don't seem too receptive.   

[nigel99 143]

It seems people get hung up on what the priorities should be, and argue that until X,Y or Z are solved we shouldn’t fix a problem.

It’s a whole combination of factors that include cost, benefit analysis. Quite simply there are weapons that have the potential to cause great harm, beyond being a hobby item they have little value in a civilised society and relatively few are inconvenienced by removing or limiting access. 

 No removing them doesn’t stop a nut job going on a violent spree. I would rather be in an environment where the nut job can go on a spree with a knife, than an Apache attack helicopter fully loaded with weaponry.

[JoeWeber 2,297]

22 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Exactly.  You don't have to make decisions based on some imaginary hypothetical career as a grief counselor.  (please don't tell me you're actually a grief counselor)

Just be rational and look at the data.  I posted a link to a study that suggests banning assault rifles may not be the best course of action at this time, and that perhaps collectively following a set of 3 different laws may be the way to go, but you don't seem too receptive.   

Grief Counselor, no. DZO, yes. You be the judge if there are similarities but all you are getting from me here is how I see the world. Now please answer the question in context. As a committed Christian what could you say?

[Coreece 190]

5 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Now please answer the question in context. As a committed Christian what could you say?

Don't make me angry.

[JoeWeber 2,297]

3 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Don't make me angry.

Wouldn't think of it. 

[Coreece 190]

21 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

25 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Don't make me angry.

Wouldn't think of it. 

So then why try to change the subject?

The bottom line here is that whatever religion you, (or aren't) you're obviously making decisions based on faith if you continue to ignore the facts I've posted.

Edited August 7, 2019 by Coreece

[JoeWeber 2,297]

1 minute ago, Coreece said:

So then why try to change the subject?

The bottom line here is that whatever religion you, (are aren't) you're obviously making decisions based on faith if you continue to ignore the facts I've posted.

Sorry. More BS. Here it is again.

 

1 hour ago, JoeWeber said:

Coreece, that's silly. The children are already dead. I'm thinking about how to be honest with the people living a new fresh hell. We'll never be fully off the hook for this insanity, if that is, you believe we are on the hook. But you might be able to look some poor horror ravaged mother in the eye and say you tried. You could say that we tried our best to get these weapons out of the hands of people who might do this sort of thing. We're sorry but we are trying and we wont stop.

You're a committed Christian. What could you say?

 

I'm no Christian and I make no decisions based on faith. You do. What Christian thing would you tell them? Let me guess, its Gods will, based on statistics?

[Coreece 190]

Just now, JoeWeber said:

I'm no Christian and I make no decisions based on faith.

Your decision to ban assault rifles is based on emotion, principle, personal opinion and faith that less kids will die, not facts.

...and that's fine.  You just seem to have a hard time admitting it.

[JoeWeber 2,297]

28 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Your decision to ban assault rifles is based on emotion, principle, personal opinion and faith that less kids will die, not facts.

...and that's fine.  You just seem to have a hard time admitting it.

Not faith. Hope. Hope that maybe, just maybe, it would be an inflection point. Wouldn't it be awesome if attacks became so rare that this conversation never happened? In this case, what's the real cost? Best I can tell it's just a small number of irrational hardcores being deprived access to unnecessary weapons. 

You aren't going to answer the question. I knew that upfront. Have a good evening.

[gowlerk 1,905]

6 hours ago, Coreece said:

Or, maybe you're just struggling to see it.  Your argument is essentially the whole "think of the children" thing.  So think of the children.  Thousands have died in drunk driving accidents and prohibition could possibly save lives. 

And your argument is just the typical one the NRA makes. Like them you just don't have the guts to come out and just say it. Namely, "it's too bad about all the deaths, especially the kids, but it's worth it so that we can have our killing machines". Everyone's gotta die sometime.

[gowlerk 1,905]

5 hours ago, Coreece said:

Your decision to ban assault rifles is based on emotion, principle, personal opinion and faith that less kids will die, not facts.

Clearly, less people will die if their killers have less efficient killing machines. Clearly some will still die. Those two statements are reasonable truths. The real question is whether or not the number of lives saved is worth the inconvenience and disappointment lovers of killing machines will feel if they are in some small way restricted. And no, your religion does not require you to feel any particular level of compassion towards the parents of the victims. You are free to continue to just send out Ts and Ps and still consider yourself saved. Like anyone else.  

[rifleman 61]

In the UK, if you like the looks of the "assault rifle" type weapons (AR variant, AK, Sig Sauer, H&K) you can own a semi-auto version of it with, if you so desire, high capacity magazines and suppressor but the only restrictions are that it must be chambered for .22LR and you must show good reason for owning it. Bolt action rifles can be chambered for .17HMR up to .50 cal and shotguns of all types are limited to a maximum of 3 rounds capacity (2 in mag, 1 in breech).

[JerryBaumchen 1,047]

2 hours ago, rifleman said:

In the UK, if you like the looks of the "assault rifle" type weapons (AR variant, AK, Sig Sauer, H&K) you can own a semi-auto version of it with, if you so desire, high capacity magazines and suppressor but the only restrictions are that it must be chambered for .22LR and you must show good reason for owning it. Bolt action rifles can be chambered for .17HMR up to .50 cal and shotguns of all types are limited to a maximum of 3 rounds capacity (2 in mag, 1 in breech).

Hi rifleman,

I think that is a great starting position.

Jerry Baumchen

[billvon 2,395]

3 hours ago, gowlerk said:

And your argument is just the typical one the NRA makes. Like them you just don't have the guts to come out and just say it. Namely, "it's too bad about all the deaths, especially the kids, but it's worth it so that we can have our killing machines". Everyone's gotta die sometime.

This is what gets me about many of these arguments.  It often devolves to people trying to put a politically correct face on the statement "yes, it's an issue, but I just don't care."

(Note that Coreece has proposed other solutions, so this is more directed at the NRA than at him.)
 

[billvon 2,395]

5 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi rifleman,

I think that is a great starting position.

It's also a better approach than the old assault weapon ban, which had some pretty silly provisions.  (Bayonet lugs?   Who cares?)  Put simple numbers on rounds/shells, calibers and/or power downrange over some time.

[sundevil777 93]

On 8/1/2019 at 5:39 PM, GeorgiaDon said:

 

 

So, then, why did Trump and the Republican Party repeal the law that required people with certain mental health issues to be reported to the database that is used for federal background checks?  The law had required that people who are so mentally ill that they are on disability, and also have been ruled by the courts to be unable to manage their own affairs so they have to have someone else manage those disability payments, be reported to the database.  Since the repeal, which was promoted by the NRA and enthusiastically backed by the Republican party, people who cannot be trusted with a credit card or checkbook must be trusted with any legal firearm.  That's crazy!

Also, what do you mean by " "This is the world we live in, live accordingly."  It's a dangerous world out there, Be prepared for it."  Does that mean be prepared to shoot first and ask questions later?  Or does it mean "Prepare to die at any instant, such as while watching a movie, listening to a concert, enjoying a food festival, etc?  Or maybe it means "hide in your house and let crazy people with guns run amuck".

"This is the world we live in" was the refrain of those who supported all kinds of social atrocities, such as Jim Crow laws.  "If you don't like it, move somewhere else".  How about asking why this is the world we live in, if the world could be a better place, and if so why not change the rules to make it better.

 

Don

My understanding is that even the ACLU opposed that. 

[ryoder 1,381]

On 8/5/2019 at 2:43 PM, billvon said:

I am sure some combination of heroism, expensive rapid-draw holsters, large caliber handguns, dramatic music and creative imaginings could have prevented this.  I'm pretty sure I saw that in a movie once.

Don't be so quick to dismiss it:

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1040676

[Coreece 190]

On 8/7/2019 at 7:51 AM, JoeWeber said:

On 8/7/2019 at 7:10 AM, Coreece said:

Your decision to ban assault rifles is based on emotion, principle, personal opinion and faith that less kids will die, not facts.

...and that's fine.  You just seem to have a hard time admitting it.

Not faith. Hope.

"Faith is the confidence that what we hope for will actually happen; it gives us assurance about things we cannot see."

 

On 8/7/2019 at 7:51 AM, JoeWeber said:

You aren't going to answer the question. I knew that upfront.

Because we both know it wasn't asked in good faith and irrelevant to the point I was trying to make.  It was just an extension of your plea for pity through the attempted manipulation of people's emotions and feelings about kids and faith, rather than by reason - and then on top of that you say you're trying to be honest.

[Coreece 190]

On 8/7/2019 at 12:36 PM, gowlerk said:

On 8/7/2019 at 5:34 AM, Coreece said:

Or, maybe you're just struggling to see it.  Your argument is essentially the whole "think of the children" thing.  So think of the children.  Thousands have died in drunk driving accidents and prohibition could possibly save lives.  

And your argument is just the typical one the NRA makes. Like them you just don't have the guts to come out and just say it. Namely, "it's too bad about all the deaths, especially the kids, but it's worth it so that we can have our killing machines". Everyone's gotta die sometime. 

How is that anything like my argument?  I didn't say that I opposed a ban, and I even briefly described how I'd prefer to see such a ban implemented.

 

On 8/7/2019 at 12:46 PM, gowlerk said:

And no, your religion does not require you to feel any particular level of compassion towards the parents of the victims.

You don't show compassion by exploiting the deaths of children and diverting attention away from facts and rational arguments for reasonable solutions.