New gun control thread!

[Chef Jim]

I'm not sure how a mass knife attack with few or no casualties supports your 'no gun problem' hypothesis. What are you getting at exactly?

 

That the world is full of crazy people and removing guns from the equation will not eliminate the problem of mass violence. So it's only an issue worthy of outrage if people are killed or if people are killed with guns?

[Gene Frenkle]

To be honest with you, I'm not in favor of restricting much of anything. That's not to say that I'm opposed to some sort of Universal Background checks, just that the emphasis by liberal gun control advocates has been just about exclusively about guns, and very little to do with what I just brought up.

 

If the president or liberals for that matter was truly serious about accomplishing anything worthwhile, then he and liberals would of taken on his base and spoke out forcefully about violence in the gaming and movie industries, while speaking about universal background checks. Now that he and liberals have taken the route of demagoguing gun owners, what they have done is two things.

 

One, show that they aren't serious about helping solve this issue, or else they would of done what I just suggested. And two, accomplish jack ****. If he would of taken on his own base (Hollywood), he would of shown that he was serious about this issue, and it would of given him more capital to deal with the NRA. Now everyone has entrenched themselves to their old partisan habits.

 

It was a complete missed opportunity by the president on this issue.

The legislation to restrict certain types of weapons and/or accessories has a lot of precedence and an obvious method, whether you agree with that type of restriction or not. A line will and must be drawn somewhere, it's just a matter of determining where. Universal background checks and mandatory waiting periods are a no-brainer to me, but I see a lot of opposition to that as well (opposition for the sake of opposition in most cases).

 

The piece you left out is the restriction of access to weapons by the mentally ill, which both sides seem to support.

 

The "hollywood" argument is a righty talking point designed to drum up anger by invoking "the liberal media" and "liberal hollywood" and calls for ambiguous moral legislation to combat speech and expression that is morally objectionable to some. What are the realistic actionable solutions to the "violence in the entertainment industry" problem? How do you propose to solve this problem via legislation? Are you simply looking for the president to scold his hollywood "base" and then do nothing concrete? Is that the opportunity that Obama missed?

 

Oh, good. We're playing "Let's pretend the situation was worse than it ended up being so I can make a point that fewer and fewer people accept!"

 

Okay, so let's see. Would he have killed more with an AR-15 or by strapping a bomb to his body?

AR-15 probably.

 

That the world is full of crazy people and removing guns from the equation will not eliminate the problem of mass violence. So it's only an issue worthy of outrage if people are killed or if people are killed with guns?

It's worthy of outrage, but not in the context of a gun control thread.

[B-Man]

Lol, I understand why you feel the need to redeem your apparent reading comprehension skills, but my statement was in response to Chef's post:

 

Yeah, it's a gun problem.

 

 

 

 

LOL.........well.......I suppose if you quote a Gene Frenkle Buffoon exactly, you get a Gene Frenkle Buffoon response.

 

Yes, I was commenting on your reply to Chef Jim, and how you missed the point ,

 

and laughingly continue to miss it.

 

 

 

.

[Gene Frenkle]

LOL.........well.......I suppose if you quote a Gene Frenkle Buffoon exactly, you get a Gene Frenkle Buffoon response.

 

Yes, I was commenting on your reply to Chef Jim, and how you missed the point ,

 

and laughingly continue to miss it.

That's all you've got, huh?

 

"I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left."

- Margaret Thatcher

[Magox]

 

 

The "hollywood" argument is a righty talking point designed to drum up anger by invoking "the liberal media" and "liberal hollywood" and calls for ambiguous moral legislation to combat speech and expression that is morally objectionable to some. What are the realistic actionable solutions to the "violence in the entertainment industry" problem? How do you propose to solve this problem via legislation? Are you simply looking for the president to scold his hollywood "base" and then do nothing concrete? Is that the opportunity that Obama missed?

 

 

 

And there is the rub. You are no different than the most partisan "righty". Hardcore gun advocates want no sort of restriction to their right to bear arms and hardcore lefties would rather ignore the root causes of these incidents and look to restrict gun owners rights to own guns.

 

In regards to what should they have done? I don't know. But just because you don't see an immediate solution to it doesn't mean you don't look to help solve that issue. Again, if the president and liberals were serious about solving this issue, they would of looked for a comprehensive solution rather than taking on one of their favorite bogeymen, the NRA and gun owners.

[Chef Jim]

It's worthy of outrage, but not in the context of a gun control thread.

 

Oh but absolutely in the context of a gun control thread. You control guns crazy people with commit mass violence with something else. Controlling guns will NEVER solve the problem of violence and mental illness.

Edited April 9, 2013 by Chef Jim

[Gene Frenkle]

And there is the rub. You are no different than the most partisan "righty". Hardcore gun advocates want no sort of restriction to their right to bear arms and hardcore lefties would rather ignore the root causes of these incidents and look to restrict gun owners rights to own guns.

 

In regards to what should they have done? I don't know. But just because you don't see an immediate solution to it doesn't mean you don't look to help solve that issue. Again, if the president and liberals were serious about solving this issue, they would of looked for a comprehensive solution rather than taking on one of their favorite bogeymen, the NRA and gun owners.

It's not about ignoring root causes, it's about actionable solutions. Gun/weapon rights are already restricted. It makes sense that laws restricting weapon technology should be refined as weapons are improved.

 

Most gun advocates don't want their speech restricted either. Many even watch violent movies and play violent video games.

 

Oh but absolutely in the context of a gun control thread. You control guns crazy people with commit mass violence with something else. Controlling guns will NEVER sold the problem of violence and mental illness.

Right, just the number of resulting deaths.

[Joe Miner]

It's not about ignoring root causes, it's about actionable solutions. Gun/weapon rights are already restricted. It makes sense that laws restricting weapon technology should be refined as weapons are improved.

 

 

So exactly how do these new proposals refine the laws in such a way that it will prevent more Newtown shootings?

 

Or are you talking out of your ass by parroting your leaders again?

[Magox]

It's not about ignoring root causes, it's about actionable solutions. Gun/weapon rights are already restricted. It makes sense that laws restricting weapon technology should be refined as weapons are improved.

 

Most gun advocates don't want their speech restricted either. Many even watch violent movies and play violent video games.

 

 

 

I understand that, but in order to help solve the real root cause of the issues, you have to address them all.

 

If you aren't willing to address all the issues, and you exclusively go after run rights advocates you have to understand that nothing will get done. First off, you aren't substantively helping solve the issue. The Colorado kid thought he was re enacting the batman film. So obviously that played a role, right? And the Connecticut kid though he was part of a video game, where killing people got him points.

 

These are facts. These issues played a role in the mass killings, and the one common denominator between the two was that they were both mentally ill. So, it's not just a matter of trying to honestly solve the issue, by addressing a comprehensive package, but it's also a matter of smart politics. Don't get me wrong, the guy knows how to win elections, but he doesn't know how to build public support around his policies.

 

Smart politics would include a strategy of gaining political capital and credibility. If he were to take on his base (Hollywood), with the same vigor he is taking on the NRA, he would gain political capital. There would be some conservative constituents and politicians that would say "you know what, this guy does want to solve this issue, so if he is gonna go against his base, then so will I"

 

That's how you build capital and momentum to get things done.

 

 

Now what is he about to accomplish GF?

 

Is he gonna get a meaningful bill passed?

 

Like I said, a missed opportunity. This president is great at getting elected, but is absolutely atrocious when it comes to garnering positive results for the economy.

[Chef Jim]

Right, just the number of resulting deaths.

 

So all we need to do is reduce the amounts of violent deaths not the amount of mass violent attacks?

[Gene Frenkle]

So exactly how do these new proposals refine the laws in such a way that it will prevent more Newtown shootings?

 

Or are you talking out of your ass by parroting your leaders again?

Newtown's tough, admittedly. It seems the parent was particularly irresponsible there. If the kid didn't have access to the types of weapons and high capacity magazines he came in with, perhaps some lives could have been saved. Maybe.

 

Jared Loughner (eventually) bought everything he needed in a Walmart with no background check/waiting period. Seems to me like that could have been prevented.

 

The movie theater shooting in Colorado may have been prevented or at least mitigated through tighter restrictions: mentally ill man buys weapons, ballistic armor and ammo online...

 

I understand that, but in order to help solve the real root cause of the issues, you have to address them all.

 

If you aren't willing to address all the issues, and you exclusively go after run rights advocates you have to understand that nothing will get done. First off, you aren't substantively helping solve the issue. The Colorado kid thought he was re enacting the batman film. So obviously that played a role, right? And the Connecticut kid though he was part of a video game, where killing people got him points.

 

These are facts. These issues played a role in the mass killings, and the one common denominator between the two was that they were both mentally ill. So, it's not just a matter of trying to honestly solve the issue, by addressing a comprehensive package, but it's also a matter of smart politics. Don't get me wrong, the guy knows how to win elections, but he doesn't know how to build public support around his policies.

 

Smart politics would include a strategy of gaining political capital and credibility. If he were to take on his base (Hollywood), with the same vigor he is taking on the NRA, he would gain political capital. There would be some conservative constituents and politicians that would say "you know what, this guy does want to solve this issue, so if he is gonna go against his base, then so will I"

 

That's how you build capital and momentum to get things done.

 

 

Now what is he about to accomplish GF?

 

Is he gonna get a meaningful bill passed?

 

Like I said, a missed opportunity. This president is great at getting elected, but is absolutely atrocious when it comes to garnering positive results for the economy.

Where am I not willing to address all the issues? You're the one jumping to "common-sense" conclusions about complex psychological conditions. Would these people have engaged in these acts without viewing these movies or playing these video games? How are so many people able watch these movies and play these games without committing mass murder? You are talking about facts as if invoking that word makes these conclusions correct.

 

What does "taking on his hollywood base" mean?

[Chef Jim]

Newtown's tough, admittedly. It seems the parent was particularly irresponsible there. If the kid didn't have access to the types of weapons and high capacity magazines he came in with, perhaps some lives could have been saved. Maybe.

 

Jared Loughner (eventually) bought everything he needed in a Walmart with no background check/waiting period. Seems to me like that could have been prevented.

 

The movie theater shooting in Colorado may have been prevented or at least mitigated through tighter restrictions: mentally ill man buys weapons, ballistic armor and ammo online...

 

 

Where am I not willing to address all the issues? You're the one jumping to "common-sense" conclusions about complex psychological conditions. Would these people have engaged in these acts without viewing these movies or playing these video games? How are so many people able watch these movies and play these games without committing mass murder? You are talking about facts as if invoking that word makes these conclusions correct.

 

What does "taking on his hollywood base" mean?

 

Mentally ill people intent on wreaking havoc will do so regardless of what restrictions you put on guns.

[DC Tom]

MSNBC's reporting the knife had a pistol grip and detachable stock.

 

 

On a slightly more serious note: people in Britain have campaigned for banning knifes to reduce knife violence. Seriously.

 

 

How many more dead/wounded if the attacker had an AR-15 with a high-capacity magazine do you think?

 

Probably fewer. It's tough to stab somebody with a rifle.

 

Mentally ill people intent on wreaking havoc will do so regardless of what restrictions you put on guns.

 

Case in point: Gene in this thread.

 

Though "mentally ill" is a completely unnecessary qualifier.

[Gene Frenkle]

MSNBC's reporting the knife had a pistol grip and detachable stock.

 

 

On a slightly more serious note: people in Britain have campaigned for banning knifes to reduce knife violence. Seriously.

 

 

 

 

Probably fewer. It's tough to stab somebody with a rifle.

 

Case in point: Gene in this thread.

 

Though "mentally ill" is a completely unnecessary qualifier.

Smart, self-absorbed AND funny. You are the complete package.

[DC Tom]

Smart, self-absorbed AND funny. You are the complete package.

 

I am what God made me.

[Chef Jim]

I am what God made me.

 

I knew it!!

 

[Magox]

Newtown's tough, admittedly. It seems the parent was particularly irresponsible there. If the kid didn't have access to the types of weapons and high capacity magazines he came in with, perhaps some lives could have been saved. Maybe.

 

Jared Loughner (eventually) bought everything he needed in a Walmart with no background check/waiting period. Seems to me like that could have been prevented.

 

The movie theater shooting in Colorado may have been prevented or at least mitigated through tighter restrictions: mentally ill man buys weapons, ballistic armor and ammo online...

 

 

Where am I not willing to address all the issues? You're the one jumping to "common-sense" conclusions about complex psychological conditions. Would these people have engaged in these acts without viewing these movies or playing these video games? How are so many people able watch these movies and play these games without committing mass murder? You are talking about facts as if invoking that word makes these conclusions correct.

 

What does "taking on his hollywood base" mean?

 

 

Would they have committed the crimes you ask? My guess is the combination of their mental illness with the spark created by these movies and games along with the access to guns is what contributed to the killings.

 

 

The Colorado kid thought he was re enacting the batman film. So obviously that played a role, right? And the Connecticut kid though he was part of a video game, where killing people got him points.

 

 

Hold on a second, So you believe that him dressing as the joker during the a batman movie wasn't influenced by the movie?

 

Or that Adam lanza, who had thousands of dollars of violent video games, playing these game hours upon hours, all holed up in his dark room, didn't play a role as a motivating force in these killings? Puhleasaase.

 

 

Like I said, you are no different than the "righties", you just play for the other team.

[Gene Frenkle]

I am what God made me.

Aren't we all?

[DC Tom]

Would they have committed the crimes you ask? My guess is the combination of their mental illness with the spark created by these movies and games along with the access to guns is what contributed to the killings.

 

 

 

 

Hold on a second, So you believe that him dressing as the joker during the a batman movie wasn't influenced by the movie?

 

Or that Adam lanza, who had thousands of dollars of violent video games, playing these game hours upon hours, all holed up in his dark room, didn't play a role as a motivating force in these killings? Puhleasaase.

 

 

Like I said, you are no different than the "righties", you just play for the other team.

 

Less "motivating force" than feeding a detachment from reality. Take an isolated loner, give them something to focus on that gives them a sense of belonging, throw some violence (real or virtual) into their cognitive environment, simmer for five or so years, and you have yourself a mass murderer.

 

Optionally, you can season with direction and purpose, and you have a terrorist.

 

Aren't we all?

 

You tell me.

[Gene Frenkle]

Less "motivating force" than feeding a detachment from reality. Take an isolated loner, give them something to focus on that gives them a sense of belonging, throw some violence (real or virtual) into their cognitive environment, simmer for five or so years, and you have yourself a mass murderer.

 

Optionally, you can season with direction and purpose, and you have a terrorist.

 

 

 

You tell me.

No, we are not all what God made you.