MarkAF43 Posted December 3, 2015 Posted December 3, 2015 It is! You're right! Well, the weapons used were legally purchased, so how about starting with "how can we prevent people from acquiring guns so easily"? These guys did not have criminal backgrounds so that means identifying "bad guys" from "good guys" will indeed be tricky. Once again, I'm not going to go the route of pretending I have every policy answer. All that leads to is people who disagree nitpicking it and then dismissing the larger idea. I'm not running for office. I just want people to consider the larger idea instead of outright dismissing all attempts at gun restrictions. I don't ever really comment here on PPP because I truthfully don't consider myself as intelligent as some of the people here. However, I see this brought up frequently (not just by you). How do you or anyone know they acquired them easily? Do you or anyone else have facts that it was easy for them to get the guns because they got them legally? I'll hang up and listen.
LA Grant Posted December 3, 2015 Author Posted December 3, 2015 I don't ever really comment here on PPP because I truthfully don't consider myself as intelligent as some of the people here. However, I see this brought up frequently (not just by you). How do you or anyone know they acquired them easily? Do you or anyone else have facts that it was easy for them to get the guns because they got them legally? I'll hang up and listen. By easily I just mean legally, as in, it should be much harder or next to impossible to acquire these guns. They had hoops to jump through to get a license but those restrictions weren't enough to prevent them from landing in the wrong hands.
FireChan Posted December 3, 2015 Posted December 3, 2015 By easily I just mean legally, as in, it should be much harder or next to impossible to acquire these guns. They had hoops to jump through to get a license but those restrictions weren't enough to prevent them from landing in the wrong hands. When has making something "next to impossible" to acquire ever been successful in the US?
MarkAF43 Posted December 3, 2015 Posted December 3, 2015 By easily I just mean legally, as in, it should be much harder or next to impossible to acquire these guns. They had hoops to jump through to get a license but those restrictions weren't enough to prevent them from landing in the wrong hands. With the information we know right now, there isn't a lot to suggest these people were on watch lists or anything like that, so for this moment they were pretty much typical citizens. So how are they considered the wrong hands?
FireChan Posted December 3, 2015 Posted December 3, 2015 With the information we know right now, there isn't a lot to suggest these people were on watch lists or anything like that, so for this moment they were pretty much typical citizens. So how are they considered the wrong hands? Sounds like we need some precogs.
LA Grant Posted December 3, 2015 Author Posted December 3, 2015 When has making something "next to impossible" to acquire ever been successful in the US? I do think this is a valid point. But it's still harder to get cocaine and heroin than it is a gun. Still, yeah I have always thought it is funny how the liberal/conservative agendas differ on what should and should not be banned. It's just kinda comical. I saw a version of this joke going around: Conservatives be like: Abortion? BAN IT Drugs? BAN IT Gay marriage? BAN IT Guns? Well, guys, listen, banning things never works.
FireChan Posted December 3, 2015 Posted December 3, 2015 (edited) I do think this is a valid point. But it's still harder to get cocaine and heroin than it is a gun. Still, yeah I have always thought it is funny how the liberal/conservative agendas differ on what should and should not be banned. It's just kinda comical. I saw a version of this joke going around: Conservatives be like: Abortion? BAN IT Drugs? BAN IT Gay marriage? BAN IT Guns? Well, guys, listen, banning things never works. Why didn't you put the opposite side on there? Also, citation needed. Edited December 3, 2015 by FireChan
LA Grant Posted December 3, 2015 Author Posted December 3, 2015 With the information we know right now, there isn't a lot to suggest these people were on watch lists or anything like that, so for this moment they were pretty much typical citizens. So how are they considered the wrong hands? That would be my point. We do not know which hands are the wrong hands often until they have pulled the trigger. So it should be much harder across the board.
KD in CA Posted December 3, 2015 Posted December 3, 2015 When has making something "next to impossible" to acquire ever been successful in the US? Waddya mean? Look how good it works with illegal drugs.
MarkAF43 Posted December 3, 2015 Posted December 3, 2015 That would be my point. We do not know which hands are the wrong hands often until they have pulled the trigger. So it should be much harder across the board. That proves my point though. If this person passed every check they needed to legally acquire the weapons with the current checks, what would make it different that they wouldn't pass? How far down the rabbit hole do we realistically go to try and ban people from getting guns?
KD in CA Posted December 3, 2015 Posted December 3, 2015 I do think this is a valid point. But it's still harder to get cocaine and heroin than it is a gun. No, it's not.
FireChan Posted December 3, 2015 Posted December 3, 2015 (edited) That proves my point though. If this person passed every check they needed to legally acquire the weapons with the current checks, what would make it different that they wouldn't pass? How far down the rabbit hole do we realistically go to try and ban people from getting guns? "I don't have all the details, that's irrelevant to the larger idea! Just Tweet about it, because this is ridiculous!" Edited December 3, 2015 by FireChan
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 3, 2015 Posted December 3, 2015 (edited) By easily I just mean legally, as in, it should be much harder or next to impossible to acquire these guns. They had hoops to jump through to get a license but those restrictions weren't enough to prevent them from landing in the wrong hands. You haven't sought honest argument or discussion here. You led with an accusatory punch, assumed the high ground based on nothing more than fiat declarations and flawed data, and leveled personal attacks. You haven't responded to any of the several valid challenges to your position, and have continued to cling to a flawed data set; buttressing it with more personal attacks, hoping that no one would notice the logical fallacy of your "poisoning the well" tactics. Given this, what makes you believe a) that you're qualified to participate in such an argument, and b) that anyone would want to engage you in one given your apparent penchant for intellectual dishonesty? Edited December 3, 2015 by TakeYouToTasker
B-Man Posted December 3, 2015 Posted December 3, 2015 NONE. NEXT QUESTION? What Are the ‘Common Sense Gun Laws’ that Would Have Prevented the San Bernardino Massacre? Related: Guns: Time to Call the Liberal Bluff? .
Maury Ballstein Posted December 3, 2015 Posted December 3, 2015 But it's still harder to get cocaine and heroin than it is a gun. . Maybe for a square like you. Hot girls all over college campuses are slinging that Coke and Heroin. Check out that Dea agents daughter, she's got it all.
LA Grant Posted December 3, 2015 Author Posted December 3, 2015 That proves my point though. If this person passed every check they needed to legally acquire the weapons with the current checks, what would make it different that they wouldn't pass? How far down the rabbit hole do we realistically go to try and ban people from getting guns? Further. If something is not working, shouldn't it be fixed? What is to be lost from additional funding for research toward solutions (which as previously cited Congress has blocked)? Gun control laws in other countries should all be outright dismissed? I don't understand not having any flexibility on that. http://www.bustle.co...actly-the-point http://www.businessi...-control-2013-1
FireChan Posted December 3, 2015 Posted December 3, 2015 Further. If something is not working, shouldn't it be fixed? What is to be lost from additional funding for research toward solutions (which as previously cited Congress has blocked)? Gun control laws in other countries should all be outright dismissed? I don't understand not having any flexibility on that. http://www.bustle.co...actly-the-point http://www.businessi...-control-2013-1 How?
LA Grant Posted December 3, 2015 Author Posted December 3, 2015 Maybe for a square like you. Hot girls all over college campuses are slinging that Coke and Heroin. Check out that Dea agents daughter, she's got it all. You haven't sought honest argument of discussion here. You led with an accusatory punch, assumed the high ground based on nothing more than fiat declarations and flawed data, and leveled personal attacks. You haven't responded to any of the several valid challenges to your position, and have continued to cling to a flawed data set; buttressing it with more personal attacks, hoping that no one would notice the logical fallacy of your "poisoning the well" tactics. Given this, what makes you believe a) that you're qualified to participate in such an argument, and b) that anyone who want to engage you in one given your apparent penchant for intellectual dishonesty? Where are these "valid challenges"?
TakeYouToTasker Posted December 3, 2015 Posted December 3, 2015 Where are these "valid challenges"? Go back and read through your own thread, and make a list of all the questions you've been asked which you have either outright ignored, or carefully skirted around. Those would be the ones.
LA Grant Posted December 3, 2015 Author Posted December 3, 2015 How? There's no answer I can give you that will satisfy you but that doesn't mean there aren't solutions worth considering. I'm not going to give you the ammunition you're looking for to dismiss this more than you already have. I do have specific opinions but you're not getting them, at least not in this context. What I think should happen is definitely too far left for you considering you cannot admit that gun access is a problem. There are more moderate solutions than what I specifically want that you might be able to sympathize with more. Does that make sense? Also, FireChan, you need to start bringing something more here than just looking for "gotcha" moments. At least DC Tom sometimes has things to say, you're more gnat-like in your approach. You would be a good example for why I called DC Tom a "thought leader" in my original post. You couldn't lead yourself to the kitchen. ... Actually, in a more general way, I'm not saying this will be my last post in this thread but I am saying I will be wrapping up at some point soon here. We're going in circles and no one is really listening. I predicted in the first post all that would happen would be people trying to "catch" me in order to dismiss the point, and with a few exceptions, that is mostly what happened. Maybe there were lurkers who enjoyed it. Hopefully some people are more doubtful about the NRA's agenda and rhetoric, or at least agree that "more guns" and "less restrictions" are definitely NOT the answer. And if that didn't happen, well, at least you had fun shouting at a stranger on the Internet today.
Recommended Posts