dubs Posted August 5, 2019 Posted August 5, 2019 1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said: Its crazy! Blows me away that anyone follows the MSM at this point. Same for nearly every every elected official in Washington. They don’t actually want to fix anything. Their industry lifeblood are “issues” 1 1
Deranged Rhino Posted August 5, 2019 Posted August 5, 2019 1 minute ago, dubs said: Its crazy! Blows me away that anyone follows the MSM at this point. Same for nearly every every elected official in Washington. They don’t actually want to fix anything. Their industry lifeblood are “issues” 100% It's not about fixing problems -- for most in DC it's about keeping them going so they can fund raise off them and capitalize politically with their chosen bases. 1 2
jrober38 Posted August 5, 2019 Posted August 5, 2019 39 minutes ago, dpberr said: I agree. Bans just speed up the evolution of the means. Today it's guns. Tomorrow it's drones. Why shoot up a place when you can fly a drone or drones inside it and detonate the bomb you've attached to it? I think you give these type of people way too much credit.
Deranged Rhino Posted August 5, 2019 Posted August 5, 2019 10 minutes ago, jrober38 said: I think you give these type of people way too much credit. Then I'd assume you'd also agree that the people arguing we need fundamental and sweeping cultural and political changes because of these "people" giving them too much credit? 2 1
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted August 5, 2019 Posted August 5, 2019 3 hours ago, jrober38 said: Agreed. Banning things will never work. But making it harder to access weapons should be the goal. It shouldn't be an inconvenience for someone to take a course, get vetted and prove that they're actually a responsible gun owner. If the trade off is making people safer, how can that not be something everything is on board with? If you have to get licensed to drive a car, why should you not have to get licensed to own firearms? Your argument is invalid, imo, because the old 'trade off is making people safer' argument that means little in day to day life. Personally, I'd no more prefer to be done in by a Chevy Cobalt being driven by a texting teen or impaired driver than I would by a guy shooting up a Walmart, and believe the odds of the Cobalt getting me are substantially higher than that of the sociopath with the firearm--and you have to get licensed to drive the Cobalt. If I really wanted to be safer, wouldn't I want to get rid of the Cobalt first? Besides--I'm not the lawful guy owner. He/she thinks he/she IS safer with the gun, and I'm hard-pressed to disagree. 3 hours ago, Tiberius said: Just certain types of guns. No one is saying hunting rifles, shotguns or pistols are going to be banned, just military style assault weapons. Look, I'm not a gun guy. I've never owned one, may have fired a shotgun once or twice, but that's about it. I do, however, see the need for precise language when discussing issues as emotional as gun control. I'm assuming you are not running for a seat in congress, so, what exactly constitutes a 'military style assault weapon'? To me, it's a creative and descriptive term, invokes images of GIs storming a bunker in some far off land (before being betrayed by those in the halls of power of the country when political winds shift--but that's a different subject) and encompasses anything from a pistol to a machine gun to a missile launcher. I don't like being manipulated---and I certainly will give you the benefit of the doubt here where I do not extend the same benefit to a politician---and I think that particular term is incredibly manipulative and may well mean everything from a pistol to a machine gun to a missile launcher depending on who(m) is using it. And, one more thing to both of you with no particular animus directed your way--it does strike me as incredibly hypocritical of those gun control advocates who support abortion to the point of conception. In other words, this is a complicated subject. 2
SoCal Deek Posted August 5, 2019 Posted August 5, 2019 This emotionally on edge condition is not result of Donald Trump. If anything this is the result when half of the country refuses to accept the results of an election! 3
Deranged Rhino Posted August 5, 2019 Posted August 5, 2019 1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said: This emotionally on edge condition is not result of Donald Trump. If anything this is the result when half of the country refuses to accept the results of an election! Not only refused to accept the results -- were pushed, prodded, and lied into believing the election was stolen by a foreign power and anyone who thought otherwise wasn't just a person with a different opinion, but an enemy of the country and a Nazi/Putin supporter. Two years of that goes a long way. 3 1
SoCal Deek Posted August 5, 2019 Posted August 5, 2019 Just now, Deranged Rhino said: Not only refused to accept the results -- were pushed, prodded, and lied into believing the election was stolen by a foreign power and anyone who thought otherwise wasn't just a person with a different opinion, but an enemy of the country and a Nazi/Putin supporter. Two years of that goes a long way. Agreed! You’d see a lot less antagonistic rhetoric if The Resistance would have put their energy into winning in 2020. Instead we have a Clown Show of candidates and resentment across the land. Nice job people! 1
GG Posted August 5, 2019 Posted August 5, 2019 Crazy has been around since humans started walking upright Guns have been around for centuries Mass shootings have been rising in the last 30 years What has changed? 1
Deranged Rhino Posted August 5, 2019 Posted August 5, 2019 *Wisdom... which means it'll be completely ignored by most.
SoCal Deek Posted August 5, 2019 Posted August 5, 2019 Just now, GG said: Crazy has been around since humans started walking upright Guns have been around for centuries Mass shootings have been rising in the last 30 years What has changed? Social Media is turning everyone into a critic of everything...and the media has realized that their ratings skyrocket when it bleeds.
GG Posted August 5, 2019 Posted August 5, 2019 4 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said: Social Media is turning everyone into a critic of everything...and the media has realized that their ratings skyrocket when it bleeds. Social media didn't exist 30 years ago.
3rdnlng Posted August 5, 2019 Posted August 5, 2019 In no way am I an expert on firearms but it is my understanding that ammunition used in an AR-15 (.223) and other weapons such as the M-16 is built to tumble upon hitting the target. That's one of the reasons it is used in the military, it's point of impact can be a person's shoulder and it's exit can be their hip. That's a lot of damage done to someone's internal organs. The restriction of ammunition may be an avenue to pursue. Regardless, if I were President I would appoint a bipartisan commission to study the problem of gun violence with time limits on a recommendation. This would be a way to possibly come up with better ways of dealing with it but also take the heat off politically by removing another democrat issue. 2
bdutton Posted August 5, 2019 Posted August 5, 2019 (edited) 17 minutes ago, GG said: What has changed? In the early 1970's there was a shift in treating mental illness with incarceration in mental institutions to prescribing powerful psychotropic drugs on an out patient process. The media has become increasingly polarized along political extremes. Very little if any honest news organizations exist because it isn't profitable to do any honest reporting of news. Violence in media has increased substantially (video games, TV, Movies and even in radio). You used to get an X rating if you had any nudity or language in movies. With the introduction of cable/satellite tv, the reach of the FCC to control content, and an increased tolerance by consumers for violence and language means violent content is much more prevalent leading to a desensitizing to the violence. The Internet (an with it social media) has created a sense of anonymity to human interactions online. We would almost never say some of the things we say on an internet forum like this to people face to face. This in turn creates the false sense of superiority over people online. Both sides of the political/social spectrum are guilty of this. Also, the term of mass shooting is frequently misused (for political reasons) by the media. More people are killed in Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit... etc... on any given weekend that there are with the rare (albeit increasing) occurrence of a mass shooting like the one of El Paso. The only thing that has never changed is the function of a firearm. You could buy an AR-15 and a thousand rounds of ammo for it over mail order and have it delivered to your home with no background checks and no waiting period before the 1968 Firearm act. Yet the number of mass shootings with rifles (or in general) in those days was extremely rare. The problem is/was never about the availability and function of any given type of firearm. 5 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said: In no way am I an expert on firearms but it is my understanding that ammunition used in an AR-15 (.223) and other weapons such as the M-16 is built to tumble upon hitting the target. That's one of the reasons it is used in the military, it's point of impact can be a person's shoulder and it's exit can be their hip. That's a lot of damage done to someone's internal organs. The restriction of ammunition may be an avenue to pursue. Regardless, if I were President I would appoint a bipartisan commission to study the problem of gun violence with time limits on a recommendation. This would be a way to possibly come up with better ways of dealing with it but also take the heat off politically by removing another democrat issue. This is not true. The .223 was designed to be lightweight and accurate. The ability to carry more ammo was the purpose. Also, one of the complaints about using the .223 'ball' ammo (full metal jacket) in places like Mogadishu was that despite direct hits to the torso the bullet would put a clean hole through the target. The fighters in Mogadishu were hopped up on drugs and it would take 2-3 hits before they would stay down. A lot of the special ops would buy their own hollow points to increase the effectiveness (despite being against the geneva convention). Edited August 5, 2019 by bdutton 2
SoCal Deek Posted August 5, 2019 Posted August 5, 2019 9 minutes ago, GG said: Social media didn't exist 30 years ago. Columbine wasn’t 30 years ago. Don’t kid yourself. This phenomenon has escalated exponentially since social media came on the scene. Social outcasts now have an everyday forum for their planning, activities, dialogue, etc. It’s like an after school club for malcontents! It’s not caused by social media but the fire’s used social media as its fuel. 1
Azalin Posted August 5, 2019 Posted August 5, 2019 8 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said: It’s not caused by social media but the fire’s used social media as its fuel. It seems to me that the traditional media outlets have been most responsible for generating the social outcry, with social media being the means in which that outrage is expressed. 1
GG Posted August 5, 2019 Posted August 5, 2019 9 minutes ago, bdutton said: In the early 1970's there was a shift in treating mental illness with incarceration in mental institutions to prescribing powerful psychotropic drugs on an out patient process. The media has become increasingly polarized along political extremes. Very little if any honest news organizations exist because it isn't profitable to do any honest reporting of news. Violence in media has increased substantially (video games, TV, Movies and even in radio). You used to get an X rating if you had any nudity or language in movies. With the introduction of cable/satellite tv, the reach of the FCC to control content, and an increased tolerance by consumers for violence and language means violent content is much more prevalent leading to a desensitizing to the violence. The Internet (an with it social media) has created a sense of anonymity to human interactions online. We would almost never say some of the things we say on an internet forum like this to people face to face. This in turn creates the false sense of superiority over people online. Both sides of the political/social spectrum are guilty of this. Correct on all accounts, but missing the notion of Herostratic fame. Notice how we see much less assassination attempts of famous people/politicians? You can draw a close parallel between the weekend shooters and a Leo Gzolgosz, with the only difference being the intended targets.
SoCal Deek Posted August 5, 2019 Posted August 5, 2019 2 minutes ago, Azalin said: It seems to me that the traditional media outlets have been most responsible for generating the social outcry, with social media being the means in which that outrage is expressed. I hate to break it to you but the young people who perpetuate this sort of terror do NOT watch ‘traditional media’. 3 minutes ago, GG said: Correct on all accounts, but missing the notion of Herostratic fame. Notice how we see much less assassination attempts of famous people/politicians? You can draw a close parallel between the weekend shooters and a Leo Gzolgosz, with the only difference being the intended targets. Yes, studies show that these terrorists are after a body count. It’s like getting a high score of Frogger.
Azalin Posted August 5, 2019 Posted August 5, 2019 1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said: I hate to break it to you but the young people who perpetuate this sort of terror do NOT watch ‘traditional media’. No, but the original source is still the major news outlets. Unless facebook has their own field reporters and I've somehow missed that?
Recommended Posts