Off Topic · OT Florida shooting (page 3)

fishmike wrote:

JesseDark wrote:What is so maddening about this is OUR elected officials are running around with their heads in the sand. Banning certain assault rifles is what will eliminate the problem. Too many cowards in our congress.

12 killed, 21 injured in the Columbine attack. No assault rifles. Shotgun and handguns.

By the way there have been between 5-10 million AR-15 rifles sold in the US. What will banning sale of those do? What is your logistical approach to address that cache of weapons laying around?

BTW... AR-15 is EASIER to buy than a handgun.

No lets just let's sit around for the next mass murder and send out the "thoughts and prays" again. The points use raise just deflect form the problem. Weapons that are made for war don't belong in society no more than tanks or fighter jets.

JesseDark wrote:

fishmike wrote:

JesseDark wrote:What is so maddening about this is OUR elected officials are running around with their heads in the sand. Banning certain assault rifles is what will eliminate the problem. Too many cowards in our congress.

12 killed, 21 injured in the Columbine attack. No assault rifles. Shotgun and handguns.

By the way there have been between 5-10 million AR-15 rifles sold in the US. What will banning sale of those do? What is your logistical approach to address that cache of weapons laying around?

BTW... AR-15 is EASIER to buy than a handgun.

No lets just let's sit around for the next mass murder and send out the "thoughts and prays" again. The points use raise just deflect form the problem. Weapons that are made for war don't belong in society no more than tanks or fighter jets.

so back to finger pointing. It's your fault for doing noting. Thoughts and prayers.

All the guns used for colombine were designed for home defense or hunting.

You do understand school shootings are a product of our media culture and social networking?

Again.. im not advocating inaction. I just haven't heard anything proposed that has a whiff of making a difference or that has any logistical plausibility

People have been talking about this for a long time. Why do you think it hasn't changed much?

This is why I don't things have changed
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati...

Here is a list of mass shootings in the U.S. that featured AR-15-style rifles during the last 35 years, courtesy of the Stanford Geospatial Center and Stanford Libraries and USA TODAY research:

Feb. 24, 1984: Tyrone Mitchell, 28, used an AR-15, a Stoeger 12-gauge shotgun and a Winchester 12-gauge shotgun to kill two and wound 12 at 49th Street Elementary School in Los Angeles before killing himself.
Oct. 7, 2007: Tyler Peterson, 20, used an AR-15 to kill six and injure one at an apartment in Crandon, Wis., before killing himself.
June 20, 2012: James Eagan Holmes, 24, used an AR-15-style .223-caliber Smith and Wesson rifle with a 100-round magazine, a 12-gauge Remington shotgun and two .40-caliber Glock semi-automatic pistols to kill 12 and injure 58 at a movie theater in Aurora, Colo.
Dec. 14, 2012: Adam Lanza, 20, used an AR-15-style rifle, a .223-caliber Bushmaster, to kill 27 people — his mother, 20 students and six teachers — in Newtown, Conn., before killing himself.
June 7, 2013: John Zawahri, 23, used an AR-15-style .223-caliber rifle and a .44-caliber Remington revolver to kill five and injure three at a home in Santa Monica, Calif., before he was killed.
March 19, 2015: Justin Fowler, 24, used an AR-15 to kill one and injure two on a street in Little Water, N.M., before he was killed.
May 31, 2015: Jeffrey Scott Pitts, 36, used an AR-15 and .45-caliber handgun to kill two and injure two at a store in Conyers, Ga., before he was killed.
Oct. 31, 2015: Noah Jacob Harpham, 33, used an AR-15, a .357-caliber revolver and a 9mm semi-automatic pistol to kill three on a street in Colorado Springs, Colo., before he was killed.
Dec. 2, 2015: Syed Rizwyan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, 28 and 27, used two AR-15-style, .223-caliber Remington rifles and two 9 mm handguns to kill 14 and injure 21 at his workplace in San Bernardino, Calif., before they were killed.
June 12, 2016: Omar Mateen, 29, used an AR-15 style rifle (a Sig Sauer MCX), and a 9mm Glock semi-automatic pistol to kill 49 people and injure 50 at an Orlando nightclub before he was killed.
Oct. 1, 2017: Stephen Paddock, 64, used a stockpile of guns including an AR-15 to kill 58 people and injure hundreds at a music festival in Las Vegas before he killed himself.
Nov. 5, 2017: Devin Kelley, 26, used an AR-15 style Ruger rifle to kill 26 people at a church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, before he was killed.
Feb. 14, 2018: Police say Nikolas Cruz, 19, used an AR-15-style rifle to kill at least 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla.

My phone is not letting me "quote" the last post.

But this is why discussions disintegrate. When you start calling people ignorant and accusing them of knee jerk reactions. The majority of the country at one time owned and wanted slaves, that was a much more deeply rooted part of the culture and it was the law. Someone then started to see the error in their ways because a small minority at first started pushing back on the establishment ideology. Then it gained momentum and became a movement. Yes the other side won't give up without a fight but it doesn't have to be "fought" with weapons.

I guess MLK, didn't get the memo that culture cannot be changed, because he must have sounded pretty stupid, right?

No one said it's going to be easy or the other side can be sweet talked or will be willing to cave in. What I am asking for is movement to start the fight and to take it to the other side. This is not a knee jerk reaction. I don't have a colleague charged out plan to convince the other side. I think it's stupid to think like that.

Culture change is hard but you need an idea to fight another idea. Our side hadn't articulated a common idea or a goal. Incremental hacking at something else is not an idea. It's why nothing ever changes. Is why we keep having the discussion on the NRA's terms and context.

No you start a movement by focusing on what seems impossible, it takes faith, it takes trust and it takes a village. Then over time it evolves naturally into a movement that CAN change the world. But you can't chart it's course ahead of time or define how it will work. You can only set it up and let it run its own course.

I am not an idealist, anyone who reads my posts here will see a heavy dose of cynicism. But I can absolutely guarantee we are not going to win the fight against guns by incremental progress and dicking around with mental health issues.

meloshouldgo wrote:But I can absolutely guarantee we are not going to win the fight against guns by incremental progress and dicking around with mental health issues.

You are not going to win it, period. From the outside, it looks like americans hold the constitution as some kind of divine document that cannot be altered, even if some parts are clearly outdated. The second amendment is obsolete, as is electoral college but for a politician to say so would be career suicide.

It has never ceased to amaze me that a country built by pioneers, which has boldness and ability to embrace new things deeply rooted in its DNA (much more than us europeans, who often look at new things with interest but also a bit of skepticism) finds it so difficult to deal with the anachronisms of its founder's texts.

It will get much worse before it will get better

Soon Americans will start to buy helmets and bulletproof vests to go to school and supermarket

Juliano wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:But I can absolutely guarantee we are not going to win the fight against guns by incremental progress and dicking around with mental health issues.

You are not going to win it, period. From the outside, it looks like americans hold the constitution as some kind of divine document that cannot be altered, even if some parts are clearly outdated. The second amendment is obsolete, as is electoral college but for a politician to say so would be career suicide.

It has never ceased to amaze me that a country built by pioneers, which has boldness and ability to embrace new things deeply rooted in its DNA (much more than us europeans, who often look at new things with interest but also a bit of skepticism) finds it so difficult to deal with the anachronisms of its founder's texts.

Its already altered with "hands off my 2nd amendment"
But that won't stop gun rights activists insist that constitution cannot be changed

Juliano wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:But I can absolutely guarantee we are not going to win the fight against guns by incremental progress and dicking around with mental health issues.

You are not going to win it, period. From the outside, it looks like americans hold the constitution as some kind of divine document that cannot be altered, even if some parts are clearly outdated. The second amendment is obsolete, as is electoral college but for a politician to say so would be career suicide.

It has never ceased to amaze me that a country built by pioneers, which has boldness and ability to embrace new things deeply rooted in its DNA (much more than us europeans, who often look at new things with interest but also a bit of skepticism) finds it so difficult to deal with the anachronisms of its founder's texts.

you are making my point. You are working under the assumption that its broken when half dont think it is. Also taking shots at the constitution isnt going to yield good discussion either.

Firearm homicides and drunk driving fatalities are about the same 3(ish)/per 100k

meloshouldgo wrote:My phone is not letting me "quote" the last post.

But this is why discussions disintegrate. When you start calling people ignorant and accusing them of knee jerk reactions. The majority of the country at one time owned and wanted slaves, that was a much more deeply rooted part of the culture and it was the law. Someone then started to see the error in their ways because a small minority at first started pushing back on the establishment ideology. Then it gained momentum and became a movement. Yes the other side won't give up without a fight but it doesn't have to be "fought" with weapons.

I guess MLK, didn't get the memo that culture cannot be changed, because he must have sounded pretty stupid, right?

No one said it's going to be easy or the other side can be sweet talked or will be willing to cave in. What I am asking for is movement to start the fight and to take it to the other side. This is not a knee jerk reaction. I don't have a colleague charged out plan to convince the other side. I think it's stupid to think like that.

Culture change is hard but you need an idea to fight another idea. Our side hadn't articulated a common idea or a goal. Incremental hacking at something else is not an idea. It's why nothing ever changes. Is why we keep having the discussion on the NRA's terms and context.

No you start a movement by focusing on what seems impossible, it takes faith, it takes trust and it takes a village. Then over time it evolves naturally into a movement that CAN change the world. But you can't chart it's course ahead of time or define how it will work. You can only set it up and let it run its own course.

I am not an idealist, anyone who reads my posts here will see a heavy dose of cynicism. But I can absolutely guarantee we are not going to win the fight against guns by incremental progress and dicking around with mental health issues.

ignorance is a lack of knowledge and information. Thats from Webster.
knee-jerk
1.(of a response) automatic and unthinking.
"a knee-jerk reaction"
synonyms: impulsive, automatic, spontaneous, instinctive, mechanical, unthinking, hasty, rash, reckless, impetuous, precipitate

I really have not heard anything but the above. That is meant as a challenge. Not as an attack.

I cant think of something more different than civil rights. Throwing MLK out there an example of the above.

Are guns responsible for infringing on the constitutional rights of 18 million people? I am sorry but comparing gun control to civil rights strikes me as slight to the civil right movement. One was the (and is) repressing the rights of American citizens. Civil rights is about fighting for the equality the constitution promises. How are you correlating that to gun control?

Also all the evidence points to the fact that most gun owners are responsible. Who is the enemy here? When you talk about changing the culture who are you even talking about?

fishmike wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:My phone is not letting me "quote" the last post.

But this is why discussions disintegrate. When you start calling people ignorant and accusing them of knee jerk reactions. The majority of the country at one time owned and wanted slaves, that was a much more deeply rooted part of the culture and it was the law. Someone then started to see the error in their ways because a small minority at first started pushing back on the establishment ideology. Then it gained momentum and became a movement. Yes the other side won't give up without a fight but it doesn't have to be "fought" with weapons.

I guess MLK, didn't get the memo that culture cannot be changed, because he must have sounded pretty stupid, right?

No one said it's going to be easy or the other side can be sweet talked or will be willing to cave in. What I am asking for is movement to start the fight and to take it to the other side. This is not a knee jerk reaction. I don't have a colleague charged out plan to convince the other side. I think it's stupid to think like that.

Culture change is hard but you need an idea to fight another idea. Our side hadn't articulated a common idea or a goal. Incremental hacking at something else is not an idea. It's why nothing ever changes. Is why we keep having the discussion on the NRA's terms and context.

No you start a movement by focusing on what seems impossible, it takes faith, it takes trust and it takes a village. Then over time it evolves naturally into a movement that CAN change the world. But you can't chart it's course ahead of time or define how it will work. You can only set it up and let it run its own course.

I am not an idealist, anyone who reads my posts here will see a heavy dose of cynicism. But I can absolutely guarantee we are not going to win the fight against guns by incremental progress and dicking around with mental health issues.

ignorance is a lack of knowledge and information. Thats from Webster.
knee-jerk
1.(of a response) automatic and unthinking.
"a knee-jerk reaction"
synonyms: impulsive, automatic, spontaneous, instinctive, mechanical, unthinking, hasty, rash, reckless, impetuous, precipitate

I really have not heard anything but the above. That is meant as a challenge. Not as an attack.

I cant think of something more different than civil rights. Throwing MLK out there an example of the above.

Are guns responsible for infringing on the constitutional rights of 18 million people? I am sorry but comparing gun control to civil rights strikes me as slight to the civil right movement. One was the (and is) repressing the rights of American citizens. Civil rights is about fighting for the equality the constitution promises. How are you correlating that to gun control?

Also all the evidence points to the fact that most gun owners are responsible. Who is the enemy here? When you talk about changing the culture who are you even talking about?

Everyone who wants to have a gun is a potential murderer, if you want to have a gun you want to shoot somebody, there is no reason why a mentally healthy person would want to own a gun.

JesseDark wrote:This is why I don't things have changed
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati...

Here is a list of mass shootings in the U.S. that featured AR-15-style rifles during the last 35 years, courtesy of the Stanford Geospatial Center and Stanford Libraries and USA TODAY research:

Feb. 24, 1984: Tyrone Mitchell, 28, used an AR-15, a Stoeger 12-gauge shotgun and a Winchester 12-gauge shotgun to kill two and wound 12 at 49th Street Elementary School in Los Angeles before killing himself.
Oct. 7, 2007: Tyler Peterson, 20, used an AR-15 to kill six and injure one at an apartment in Crandon, Wis., before killing himself.
June 20, 2012: James Eagan Holmes, 24, used an AR-15-style .223-caliber Smith and Wesson rifle with a 100-round magazine, a 12-gauge Remington shotgun and two .40-caliber Glock semi-automatic pistols to kill 12 and injure 58 at a movie theater in Aurora, Colo.
Dec. 14, 2012: Adam Lanza, 20, used an AR-15-style rifle, a .223-caliber Bushmaster, to kill 27 people — his mother, 20 students and six teachers — in Newtown, Conn., before killing himself.
June 7, 2013: John Zawahri, 23, used an AR-15-style .223-caliber rifle and a .44-caliber Remington revolver to kill five and injure three at a home in Santa Monica, Calif., before he was killed.
March 19, 2015: Justin Fowler, 24, used an AR-15 to kill one and injure two on a street in Little Water, N.M., before he was killed.
May 31, 2015: Jeffrey Scott Pitts, 36, used an AR-15 and .45-caliber handgun to kill two and injure two at a store in Conyers, Ga., before he was killed.
Oct. 31, 2015: Noah Jacob Harpham, 33, used an AR-15, a .357-caliber revolver and a 9mm semi-automatic pistol to kill three on a street in Colorado Springs, Colo., before he was killed.
Dec. 2, 2015: Syed Rizwyan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, 28 and 27, used two AR-15-style, .223-caliber Remington rifles and two 9 mm handguns to kill 14 and injure 21 at his workplace in San Bernardino, Calif., before they were killed.
June 12, 2016: Omar Mateen, 29, used an AR-15 style rifle (a Sig Sauer MCX), and a 9mm Glock semi-automatic pistol to kill 49 people and injure 50 at an Orlando nightclub before he was killed.
Oct. 1, 2017: Stephen Paddock, 64, used a stockpile of guns including an AR-15 to kill 58 people and injure hundreds at a music festival in Las Vegas before he killed himself.
Nov. 5, 2017: Devin Kelley, 26, used an AR-15 style Ruger rifle to kill 26 people at a church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, before he was killed.
Feb. 14, 2018: Police say Nikolas Cruz, 19, used an AR-15-style rifle to kill at least 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla.

in between the gap of 1984 to 2007 there was an automatic weapons ban. that needs to be reenacted. in the past, I didn't want to restrict access because I did (do) not think the government can be completely trusted. that said, present day, I am more concerned about some adolescent who has access to all the information on mass killings and a media who will essentially celebrate another one

Gudris wrote:

fishmike wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:My phone is not letting me "quote" the last post.

But this is why discussions disintegrate. When you start calling people ignorant and accusing them of knee jerk reactions. The majority of the country at one time owned and wanted slaves, that was a much more deeply rooted part of the culture and it was the law. Someone then started to see the error in their ways because a small minority at first started pushing back on the establishment ideology. Then it gained momentum and became a movement. Yes the other side won't give up without a fight but it doesn't have to be "fought" with weapons.

I guess MLK, didn't get the memo that culture cannot be changed, because he must have sounded pretty stupid, right?

No one said it's going to be easy or the other side can be sweet talked or will be willing to cave in. What I am asking for is movement to start the fight and to take it to the other side. This is not a knee jerk reaction. I don't have a colleague charged out plan to convince the other side. I think it's stupid to think like that.

Culture change is hard but you need an idea to fight another idea. Our side hadn't articulated a common idea or a goal. Incremental hacking at something else is not an idea. It's why nothing ever changes. Is why we keep having the discussion on the NRA's terms and context.

No you start a movement by focusing on what seems impossible, it takes faith, it takes trust and it takes a village. Then over time it evolves naturally into a movement that CAN change the world. But you can't chart it's course ahead of time or define how it will work. You can only set it up and let it run its own course.

I am not an idealist, anyone who reads my posts here will see a heavy dose of cynicism. But I can absolutely guarantee we are not going to win the fight against guns by incremental progress and dicking around with mental health issues.

ignorance is a lack of knowledge and information. Thats from Webster.
knee-jerk
1.(of a response) automatic and unthinking.
"a knee-jerk reaction"
synonyms: impulsive, automatic, spontaneous, instinctive, mechanical, unthinking, hasty, rash, reckless, impetuous, precipitate

I really have not heard anything but the above. That is meant as a challenge. Not as an attack.

I cant think of something more different than civil rights. Throwing MLK out there an example of the above.

Are guns responsible for infringing on the constitutional rights of 18 million people? I am sorry but comparing gun control to civil rights strikes me as slight to the civil right movement. One was the (and is) repressing the rights of American citizens. Civil rights is about fighting for the equality the constitution promises. How are you correlating that to gun control?

Also all the evidence points to the fact that most gun owners are responsible. Who is the enemy here? When you talk about changing the culture who are you even talking about?

Everyone who wants to have a gun is a potential murderer, if you want to have a gun you want to shoot somebody, there is no reason why a mentally healthy person would want to own a gun.

That is your opinion and that level of ignorance fuels the divide. I can think of 100 reasons a mentally healthy person would want to own a gun. Ignorance 101.

SupremeCommander wrote:

JesseDark wrote:This is why I don't things have changed
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati...

Here is a list of mass shootings in the U.S. that featured AR-15-style rifles during the last 35 years, courtesy of the Stanford Geospatial Center and Stanford Libraries and USA TODAY research:

Feb. 24, 1984: Tyrone Mitchell, 28, used an AR-15, a Stoeger 12-gauge shotgun and a Winchester 12-gauge shotgun to kill two and wound 12 at 49th Street Elementary School in Los Angeles before killing himself.
Oct. 7, 2007: Tyler Peterson, 20, used an AR-15 to kill six and injure one at an apartment in Crandon, Wis., before killing himself.
June 20, 2012: James Eagan Holmes, 24, used an AR-15-style .223-caliber Smith and Wesson rifle with a 100-round magazine, a 12-gauge Remington shotgun and two .40-caliber Glock semi-automatic pistols to kill 12 and injure 58 at a movie theater in Aurora, Colo.
Dec. 14, 2012: Adam Lanza, 20, used an AR-15-style rifle, a .223-caliber Bushmaster, to kill 27 people — his mother, 20 students and six teachers — in Newtown, Conn., before killing himself.
June 7, 2013: John Zawahri, 23, used an AR-15-style .223-caliber rifle and a .44-caliber Remington revolver to kill five and injure three at a home in Santa Monica, Calif., before he was killed.
March 19, 2015: Justin Fowler, 24, used an AR-15 to kill one and injure two on a street in Little Water, N.M., before he was killed.
May 31, 2015: Jeffrey Scott Pitts, 36, used an AR-15 and .45-caliber handgun to kill two and injure two at a store in Conyers, Ga., before he was killed.
Oct. 31, 2015: Noah Jacob Harpham, 33, used an AR-15, a .357-caliber revolver and a 9mm semi-automatic pistol to kill three on a street in Colorado Springs, Colo., before he was killed.
Dec. 2, 2015: Syed Rizwyan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, 28 and 27, used two AR-15-style, .223-caliber Remington rifles and two 9 mm handguns to kill 14 and injure 21 at his workplace in San Bernardino, Calif., before they were killed.
June 12, 2016: Omar Mateen, 29, used an AR-15 style rifle (a Sig Sauer MCX), and a 9mm Glock semi-automatic pistol to kill 49 people and injure 50 at an Orlando nightclub before he was killed.
Oct. 1, 2017: Stephen Paddock, 64, used a stockpile of guns including an AR-15 to kill 58 people and injure hundreds at a music festival in Las Vegas before he killed himself.
Nov. 5, 2017: Devin Kelley, 26, used an AR-15 style Ruger rifle to kill 26 people at a church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, before he was killed.
Feb. 14, 2018: Police say Nikolas Cruz, 19, used an AR-15-style rifle to kill at least 17 people at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla.

in between the gap of 1984 to 2007 there was an automatic weapons ban. that needs to be reenacted. in the past, I didn't want to restrict access because I did (do) not think the government can be completely trusted. that said, present day, I am more concerned about some adolescent who has access to all the information on mass killings and a media who will essentially celebrate another one

First person to touch on the issue (of school shootings specifically). School shooting will continue because because the way they are covered here is literally fuel for those who might be capable or fit that profile in the first place.

When you see the attention they get how can anyone be surprised? These are damaged people carrying massive amounts of pain. This last one was adopted, his father was long dead, his mother died last year, he was expelled from school and profiled as a danger. So when we get to that point what happens? Where do these people go? Who helps these people? Who watches them? What resources does the gov or community provide to turn these people's lives around or protect others from them?

fishmike wrote:
you are making my point. You are working under the assumption that its broken when half dont think it is. Also taking shots at the constitution isnt going to yield good discussion either.

Firearm homicides and drunk driving fatalities are about the same 3(ish)/per 100k

I am not "taking shots at the constitution", just pointing out that it was written long ago and that the circumstances that made some parts of it valid no longer are, and said parts are obviously obsolete. Do you defend electoral college when it has allowed presidents to be elected with less overall votes than their runner up? Isn't it outdated, and do you believe that's what the founders had in mind?

I indeed believe that no citizen should be allowed to bear firearms, they should be exclusive to state or federal law enforcement.

I also understand that this will not change, and the same discussion will pop up again in 6 months when the next mass shooting occurs.

fishmike wrote:

Gudris wrote:

fishmike wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:My phone is not letting me "quote" the last post.

But this is why discussions disintegrate. When you start calling people ignorant and accusing them of knee jerk reactions. The majority of the country at one time owned and wanted slaves, that was a much more deeply rooted part of the culture and it was the law. Someone then started to see the error in their ways because a small minority at first started pushing back on the establishment ideology. Then it gained momentum and became a movement. Yes the other side won't give up without a fight but it doesn't have to be "fought" with weapons.

I guess MLK, didn't get the memo that culture cannot be changed, because he must have sounded pretty stupid, right?

No one said it's going to be easy or the other side can be sweet talked or will be willing to cave in. What I am asking for is movement to start the fight and to take it to the other side. This is not a knee jerk reaction. I don't have a colleague charged out plan to convince the other side. I think it's stupid to think like that.

Culture change is hard but you need an idea to fight another idea. Our side hadn't articulated a common idea or a goal. Incremental hacking at something else is not an idea. It's why nothing ever changes. Is why we keep having the discussion on the NRA's terms and context.

No you start a movement by focusing on what seems impossible, it takes faith, it takes trust and it takes a village. Then over time it evolves naturally into a movement that CAN change the world. But you can't chart it's course ahead of time or define how it will work. You can only set it up and let it run its own course.

I am not an idealist, anyone who reads my posts here will see a heavy dose of cynicism. But I can absolutely guarantee we are not going to win the fight against guns by incremental progress and dicking around with mental health issues.

ignorance is a lack of knowledge and information. Thats from Webster.
knee-jerk
1.(of a response) automatic and unthinking.
"a knee-jerk reaction"
synonyms: impulsive, automatic, spontaneous, instinctive, mechanical, unthinking, hasty, rash, reckless, impetuous, precipitate

I really have not heard anything but the above. That is meant as a challenge. Not as an attack.

I cant think of something more different than civil rights. Throwing MLK out there an example of the above.

Are guns responsible for infringing on the constitutional rights of 18 million people? I am sorry but comparing gun control to civil rights strikes me as slight to the civil right movement. One was the (and is) repressing the rights of American citizens. Civil rights is about fighting for the equality the constitution promises. How are you correlating that to gun control?

Also all the evidence points to the fact that most gun owners are responsible. Who is the enemy here? When you talk about changing the culture who are you even talking about?

Everyone who wants to have a gun is a potential murderer, if you want to have a gun you want to shoot somebody, there is no reason why a mentally healthy person would want to own a gun.

That is your opinion and that level of ignorance fuels the divide. I can think of 100 reasons a mentally healthy person would want to own a gun. Ignorance 101.

True. Im in favor of an AR ban, but there are still reasons unfortunately to own a firearm in this country.

One of my best friends was murdered by a career criminal who had threatened him and another person. Didnt take the threat seriously, my friend and another person were shot dead soon after.

Could be a woman who is leaving a serial abuser, could be a member of a minority group being threatened by bigots. An elderly person tired of being robbed. Unfortunately there are valid reasons in this country to own a firearm.

Wish it werent the case.

fishmike wrote:

Gudris wrote:

fishmike wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:My phone is not letting me "quote" the last post.

But this is why discussions disintegrate. When you start calling people ignorant and accusing them of knee jerk reactions. The majority of the country at one time owned and wanted slaves, that was a much more deeply rooted part of the culture and it was the law. Someone then started to see the error in their ways because a small minority at first started pushing back on the establishment ideology. Then it gained momentum and became a movement. Yes the other side won't give up without a fight but it doesn't have to be "fought" with weapons.

I guess MLK, didn't get the memo that culture cannot be changed, because he must have sounded pretty stupid, right?

No one said it's going to be easy or the other side can be sweet talked or will be willing to cave in. What I am asking for is movement to start the fight and to take it to the other side. This is not a knee jerk reaction. I don't have a colleague charged out plan to convince the other side. I think it's stupid to think like that.

Culture change is hard but you need an idea to fight another idea. Our side hadn't articulated a common idea or a goal. Incremental hacking at something else is not an idea. It's why nothing ever changes. Is why we keep having the discussion on the NRA's terms and context.

No you start a movement by focusing on what seems impossible, it takes faith, it takes trust and it takes a village. Then over time it evolves naturally into a movement that CAN change the world. But you can't chart it's course ahead of time or define how it will work. You can only set it up and let it run its own course.

I am not an idealist, anyone who reads my posts here will see a heavy dose of cynicism. But I can absolutely guarantee we are not going to win the fight against guns by incremental progress and dicking around with mental health issues.

ignorance is a lack of knowledge and information. Thats from Webster.
knee-jerk
1.(of a response) automatic and unthinking.
"a knee-jerk reaction"
synonyms: impulsive, automatic, spontaneous, instinctive, mechanical, unthinking, hasty, rash, reckless, impetuous, precipitate

I really have not heard anything but the above. That is meant as a challenge. Not as an attack.

I cant think of something more different than civil rights. Throwing MLK out there an example of the above.

Are guns responsible for infringing on the constitutional rights of 18 million people? I am sorry but comparing gun control to civil rights strikes me as slight to the civil right movement. One was the (and is) repressing the rights of American citizens. Civil rights is about fighting for the equality the constitution promises. How are you correlating that to gun control?

Also all the evidence points to the fact that most gun owners are responsible. Who is the enemy here? When you talk about changing the culture who are you even talking about?

Everyone who wants to have a gun is a potential murderer, if you want to have a gun you want to shoot somebody, there is no reason why a mentally healthy person would want to own a gun.

That is your opinion and that level of ignorance fuels the divide. I can think of 100 reasons a mentally healthy person would want to own a gun. Ignorance 101.

True. Im in favor of an AR ban, but there are still reasons unfortunately to own a firearm in this country.

One of my best friends was murdered by a career criminal who had threatened him and another person. Didnt take the threat seriously, my friend and another person were shot dead soon after.

Could be a woman who is leaving a serial abuser, could be a member of a minority group being threatened by bigots. An elderly person tired of being robbed. Unfortunately there are valid reasons in this country to own a firearm.

Wish it werent the case.

BRIGGS wrote:
Time to break into the military budget and fight real wars like poverty lack of health insurance school safety education and health care for all keep drugs out of our country. What the he ll does having so many submarines aircraft carriers ships bombs mean when kids die like this? They NEED PROTECTION NOW. Im sick of it

Then don't vote ever Republican again.

GustavBahler wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Gudris wrote:

fishmike wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:My phone is not letting me "quote" the last post.

But this is why discussions disintegrate. When you start calling people ignorant and accusing them of knee jerk reactions. The majority of the country at one time owned and wanted slaves, that was a much more deeply rooted part of the culture and it was the law. Someone then started to see the error in their ways because a small minority at first started pushing back on the establishment ideology. Then it gained momentum and became a movement. Yes the other side won't give up without a fight but it doesn't have to be "fought" with weapons.

I guess MLK, didn't get the memo that culture cannot be changed, because he must have sounded pretty stupid, right?

No one said it's going to be easy or the other side can be sweet talked or will be willing to cave in. What I am asking for is movement to start the fight and to take it to the other side. This is not a knee jerk reaction. I don't have a colleague charged out plan to convince the other side. I think it's stupid to think like that.

Culture change is hard but you need an idea to fight another idea. Our side hadn't articulated a common idea or a goal. Incremental hacking at something else is not an idea. It's why nothing ever changes. Is why we keep having the discussion on the NRA's terms and context.

No you start a movement by focusing on what seems impossible, it takes faith, it takes trust and it takes a village. Then over time it evolves naturally into a movement that CAN change the world. But you can't chart it's course ahead of time or define how it will work. You can only set it up and let it run its own course.

I am not an idealist, anyone who reads my posts here will see a heavy dose of cynicism. But I can absolutely guarantee we are not going to win the fight against guns by incremental progress and dicking around with mental health issues.

ignorance is a lack of knowledge and information. Thats from Webster.
knee-jerk
1.(of a response) automatic and unthinking.
"a knee-jerk reaction"
synonyms: impulsive, automatic, spontaneous, instinctive, mechanical, unthinking, hasty, rash, reckless, impetuous, precipitate

I really have not heard anything but the above. That is meant as a challenge. Not as an attack.

I cant think of something more different than civil rights. Throwing MLK out there an example of the above.

Are guns responsible for infringing on the constitutional rights of 18 million people? I am sorry but comparing gun control to civil rights strikes me as slight to the civil right movement. One was the (and is) repressing the rights of American citizens. Civil rights is about fighting for the equality the constitution promises. How are you correlating that to gun control?

Also all the evidence points to the fact that most gun owners are responsible. Who is the enemy here? When you talk about changing the culture who are you even talking about?

Everyone who wants to have a gun is a potential murderer, if you want to have a gun you want to shoot somebody, there is no reason why a mentally healthy person would want to own a gun.

That is your opinion and that level of ignorance fuels the divide. I can think of 100 reasons a mentally healthy person would want to own a gun. Ignorance 101.

True. Im in favor of an AR ban, but there are still reasons unfortunately to own a firearm in this country.

One of my best friends was murdered by a career criminal who had threatened him and another person. Didnt take the threat seriously, my friend and another person were shot dead soon after.

Could be a woman who is leaving a serial abuser, could be a member of a minority group being threatened by bigots. An elderly person tired of being robbed. Unfortunately there are valid reasons in this country to own a firearm.

Wish it werent the case.

It could also simply be you live in a rural area where police response time is going to be 20 minutes. I have fired several types of guns. I have never owned one and have no plans to. However if I lived in a rural area and I had property I would at least own a shotgun I could protect my land with. Bears, coyotes, wolves, rock cats... when something is killing your pets or your chickens are you going out there with a stick and harsh language? When your neighbors are miles away and there is a knock on your door at night you just trust who's on the other side? Basic home defense is the first and foremost selling point, and its a fair and valid one. That doesnt including hunting.

I dont have an issue with shotguns or rifles. Those are good tools for home defense and hunting.

fishmike wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:My phone is not letting me "quote" the last post.

But this is why discussions disintegrate. When you start calling people ignorant and accusing them of knee jerk reactions. The majority of the country at one time owned and wanted slaves, that was a much more deeply rooted part of the culture and it was the law. Someone then started to see the error in their ways because a small minority at first started pushing back on the establishment ideology. Then it gained momentum and became a movement. Yes the other side won't give up without a fight but it doesn't have to be "fought" with weapons.

I guess MLK, didn't get the memo that culture cannot be changed, because he must have sounded pretty stupid, right?

No one said it's going to be easy or the other side can be sweet talked or will be willing to cave in. What I am asking for is movement to start the fight and to take it to the other side. This is not a knee jerk reaction. I don't have a colleague charged out plan to convince the other side. I think it's stupid to think like that.

Culture change is hard but you need an idea to fight another idea. Our side hadn't articulated a common idea or a goal. Incremental hacking at something else is not an idea. It's why nothing ever changes. Is why we keep having the discussion on the NRA's terms and context.

No you start a movement by focusing on what seems impossible, it takes faith, it takes trust and it takes a village. Then over time it evolves naturally into a movement that CAN change the world. But you can't chart it's course ahead of time or define how it will work. You can only set it up and let it run its own course.

I am not an idealist, anyone who reads my posts here will see a heavy dose of cynicism. But I can absolutely guarantee we are not going to win the fight against guns by incremental progress and dicking around with mental health issues.

ignorance is a lack of knowledge and information. Thats from Webster.
knee-jerk
1.(of a response) automatic and unthinking.
"a knee-jerk reaction"
synonyms: impulsive, automatic, spontaneous, instinctive, mechanical, unthinking, hasty, rash, reckless, impetuous, precipitate

I really have not heard anything but the above. That is meant as a challenge. Not as an attack.

I cant think of something more different than civil rights. Throwing MLK out there an example of the above.

Are guns responsible for infringing on the constitutional rights of 18 million people? I am sorry but comparing gun control to civil rights strikes me as slight to the civil right movement. One was the (and is) repressing the rights of American citizens. Civil rights is about fighting for the equality the constitution promises. How are you correlating that to gun control?

Also all the evidence points to the fact that most gun owners are responsible. Who is the enemy here? When you talk about changing the culture who are you even talking about?

I am not saying guns and slaves are the same thing
I gave you an example of how ingrained culture against something that has constitutional support can be changed. You are intentionally creating a strawman to change the subject.

If anyone here is providing knee jerk reactions with right wing talking points it's you.
When I am talking about changing culture I am talking about people who need to own guns to feel safe. Because people everywhere else on the world are doing without them.

fishmike wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Gudris wrote:

fishmike wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:My phone is not letting me "quote" the last post.

But this is why discussions disintegrate. When you start calling people ignorant and accusing them of knee jerk reactions. The majority of the country at one time owned and wanted slaves, that was a much more deeply rooted part of the culture and it was the law. Someone then started to see the error in their ways because a small minority at first started pushing back on the establishment ideology. Then it gained momentum and became a movement. Yes the other side won't give up without a fight but it doesn't have to be "fought" with weapons.

I guess MLK, didn't get the memo that culture cannot be changed, because he must have sounded pretty stupid, right?

No one said it's going to be easy or the other side can be sweet talked or will be willing to cave in. What I am asking for is movement to start the fight and to take it to the other side. This is not a knee jerk reaction. I don't have a colleague charged out plan to convince the other side. I think it's stupid to think like that.

Culture change is hard but you need an idea to fight another idea. Our side hadn't articulated a common idea or a goal. Incremental hacking at something else is not an idea. It's why nothing ever changes. Is why we keep having the discussion on the NRA's terms and context.

No you start a movement by focusing on what seems impossible, it takes faith, it takes trust and it takes a village. Then over time it evolves naturally into a movement that CAN change the world. But you can't chart it's course ahead of time or define how it will work. You can only set it up and let it run its own course.

I am not an idealist, anyone who reads my posts here will see a heavy dose of cynicism. But I can absolutely guarantee we are not going to win the fight against guns by incremental progress and dicking around with mental health issues.

ignorance is a lack of knowledge and information. Thats from Webster.
knee-jerk
1.(of a response) automatic and unthinking.
"a knee-jerk reaction"
synonyms: impulsive, automatic, spontaneous, instinctive, mechanical, unthinking, hasty, rash, reckless, impetuous, precipitate

I really have not heard anything but the above. That is meant as a challenge. Not as an attack.

I cant think of something more different than civil rights. Throwing MLK out there an example of the above.

Are guns responsible for infringing on the constitutional rights of 18 million people? I am sorry but comparing gun control to civil rights strikes me as slight to the civil right movement. One was the (and is) repressing the rights of American citizens. Civil rights is about fighting for the equality the constitution promises. How are you correlating that to gun control?

Also all the evidence points to the fact that most gun owners are responsible. Who is the enemy here? When you talk about changing the culture who are you even talking about?

Everyone who wants to have a gun is a potential murderer, if you want to have a gun you want to shoot somebody, there is no reason why a mentally healthy person would want to own a gun.

That is your opinion and that level of ignorance fuels the divide. I can think of 100 reasons a mentally healthy person would want to own a gun. Ignorance 101.

True. Im in favor of an AR ban, but there are still reasons unfortunately to own a firearm in this country.

One of my best friends was murdered by a career criminal who had threatened him and another person. Didnt take the threat seriously, my friend and another person were shot dead soon after.

Could be a woman who is leaving a serial abuser, could be a member of a minority group being threatened by bigots. An elderly person tired of being robbed. Unfortunately there are valid reasons in this country to own a firearm.

Wish it werent the case.

It could also simply be you live in a rural area where police response time is going to be 20 minutes. I have fired several types of guns. I have never owned one and have no plans to. However if I lived in a rural area and I had property I would at least own a shotgun I could protect my land with. Bears, coyotes, wolves, rock cats... when something is killing your pets or your chickens are you going out there with a stick and harsh language? When your neighbors are miles away and there is a knock on your door at night you just trust who's on the other side? Basic home defense is the first and foremost selling point, and its a fair and valid one. That doesnt including hunting.

I dont have an issue with shotguns or rifles. Those are good tools for home defense and hunting.

Thats my case. Im way out in the country. Compared to most of my neighbors, Im lightly armed. Dont need an arsenal, or want one. Not storming the beaches at Normandy.

GustavBahler wrote:

fishmike wrote:

Gudris wrote:

fishmike wrote:

meloshouldgo wrote:My phone is not letting me "quote" the last post.

But this is why discussions disintegrate. When you start calling people ignorant and accusing them of knee jerk reactions. The majority of the country at one time owned and wanted slaves, that was a much more deeply rooted part of the culture and it was the law. Someone then started to see the error in their ways because a small minority at first started pushing back on the establishment ideology. Then it gained momentum and became a movement. Yes the other side won't give up without a fight but it doesn't have to be "fought" with weapons.

I guess MLK, didn't get the memo that culture cannot be changed, because he must have sounded pretty stupid, right?

No one said it's going to be easy or the other side can be sweet talked or will be willing to cave in. What I am asking for is movement to start the fight and to take it to the other side. This is not a knee jerk reaction. I don't have a colleague charged out plan to convince the other side. I think it's stupid to think like that.

Culture change is hard but you need an idea to fight another idea. Our side hadn't articulated a common idea or a goal. Incremental hacking at something else is not an idea. It's why nothing ever changes. Is why we keep having the discussion on the NRA's terms and context.

No you start a movement by focusing on what seems impossible, it takes faith, it takes trust and it takes a village. Then over time it evolves naturally into a movement that CAN change the world. But you can't chart it's course ahead of time or define how it will work. You can only set it up and let it run its own course.

I am not an idealist, anyone who reads my posts here will see a heavy dose of cynicism. But I can absolutely guarantee we are not going to win the fight against guns by incremental progress and dicking around with mental health issues.

ignorance is a lack of knowledge and information. Thats from Webster.
knee-jerk
1.(of a response) automatic and unthinking.
"a knee-jerk reaction"
synonyms: impulsive, automatic, spontaneous, instinctive, mechanical, unthinking, hasty, rash, reckless, impetuous, precipitate

I really have not heard anything but the above. That is meant as a challenge. Not as an attack.

I cant think of something more different than civil rights. Throwing MLK out there an example of the above.

Are guns responsible for infringing on the constitutional rights of 18 million people? I am sorry but comparing gun control to civil rights strikes me as slight to the civil right movement. One was the (and is) repressing the rights of American citizens. Civil rights is about fighting for the equality the constitution promises. How are you correlating that to gun control?

Also all the evidence points to the fact that most gun owners are responsible. Who is the enemy here? When you talk about changing the culture who are you even talking about?

Everyone who wants to have a gun is a potential murderer, if you want to have a gun you want to shoot somebody, there is no reason why a mentally healthy person would want to own a gun.

That is your opinion and that level of ignorance fuels the divide. I can think of 100 reasons a mentally healthy person would want to own a gun. Ignorance 101.

True. Im in favor of an AR ban, but there are still reasons unfortunately to own a firearm in this country.

One of my best friends was murdered by a career criminal who had threatened him and another person. Didnt take the threat seriously, my friend and another person were shot dead soon after.

Could be a woman who is leaving a serial abuser, could be a member of a minority group being threatened by bigots. An elderly person tired of being robbed. Unfortunately there are valid reasons in this country to own a firearm.

Wish it werent the case.

Stupid argument, you cant protect your self if you are the responsible gun owner(gun in a safe), the only way you can really protect yourself is if your gun is loaded and with you 24/7. Protection argument is super retarded. Where are those gun owners when the mass shooting starts? If guns are banned in the country in general, also criminals will have fewer guns, because guns in a black market cost 20x more than in the supermarket. Go to England and take a look how police worls there, they have only sticks and teasers, because nobody owns a gun there, even criminals don't have guns.