Jump to content


Photo

Dayton shooting


  • Please log in to reply
158 replies to this topic

#61 TxBrewer

TxBrewer

    CrAp Czar

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 20161 posts

Posted 05 August 2019 - 08:50 PM

Avoiding the question.

All I'm saying is that the gun crowd often says we need to talk about solutions but they will never, no matter the effectiveness, talk about any solution that involves making it harder for people to get guns. That's got to be at least on the table for discussion.


It's funny that you said this when George said he was behind background checks as long as they are free and records aren't kept.

Sounds like it is on the table
  • 0

#62 the_stain

the_stain

    Phat O'Mic Chef Winner!

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 80462 posts

Posted 05 August 2019 - 08:52 PM

Background checks are a start. But I bet a lot of the recent mass shooters could (or did) pass one.

So they don't really make it harder to get guns, apparently.
  • 0

#63 TxBrewer

TxBrewer

    CrAp Czar

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 20161 posts

Posted 05 August 2019 - 08:53 PM

Background checks are a start. But I bet a lot of the recent mass shooters could (or did) pass one.

So they don't really make it harder to get guns, apparently.

Ahh so gun people are willing to put some additional laws on the table, just not the laws you want.


Those stinking gun people won't budge exactly where I want them to.......

ETA those are the laws Dems have been demanding for years, now thats not enough. Shocking

Edited by TxBrewer, 05 August 2019 - 08:54 PM.

  • 0

#64 AspenLeif

AspenLeif

    Comptroller of Gingerliness

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 20152 posts
  • LocationAspen, CO

Posted 05 August 2019 - 08:54 PM

That’s as far as I’d be willing to go. Don’t infringe on me, a law abiding citizen, because of such a fringe % of the population are whackadoodle
  • 0

#65 the_stain

the_stain

    Phat O'Mic Chef Winner!

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 80462 posts

Posted 05 August 2019 - 08:57 PM

Ahh so gun people are willing to put some additional laws on the table, just not the laws you want.


First of all I'm just playing devils advocate. So calm down. I've stated like four times I'm not anti gun.

Secondly, I specifically said "laws that make it harder for people to get guns". Background checks don't really do that. So yes, I am going to reject laws that don't do what I was saying.

That’s as far as I’d be willing to go. Don’t infringe on me, a law abiding citizen, because of such a fringe % of the population are whackadoodle


Exactly. Unwilling to consider even discussing it, just like I said.
  • 0

#66 BrewerGeorge

BrewerGeorge

    His Royal Misinformed

  • Administrator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 33506 posts
  • LocationIndianapolis

Posted 05 August 2019 - 08:58 PM

So, ah, to be clear, you're saying that increased background checks are useless?

#67 the_stain

the_stain

    Phat O'Mic Chef Winner!

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 80462 posts

Posted 05 August 2019 - 09:00 PM

So, ah, to be clear, you're saying that increased background checks are useless?


Not entirely, but people are always saying "what legislation would have prevented this mass shooting?" Do you agree that background checks wouldn't have prevented many? How many times do we keep hearing that these shooters had no criminal record and got their guns legally?

Edited by the_stain, 05 August 2019 - 09:00 PM.

  • 0

#68 BrewerGeorge

BrewerGeorge

    His Royal Misinformed

  • Administrator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 33506 posts
  • LocationIndianapolis

Posted 05 August 2019 - 09:01 PM

Not entirely, but people are always saying "what legislation would have prevented this mass shooting?" Do you agree that background checks wouldn't have prevented many? How many times do we keep hearing that these shooters had no criminal record and got their guns legally?

Did we just become best friends?

#69 miccullen

miccullen

    Cheap Blue Meanie

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 63228 posts
  • LocationSpokane, WA

Posted 05 August 2019 - 09:02 PM

Avoiding the question.

All I'm saying is that the gun crowd often says we need to talk about solutions but they will never, no matter the effectiveness, talk about any solution that involves making it harder for people to get guns. That's got to be at least on the table for discussion.

make it harder for people who shouldn't have guns to get guns, or harder for everyone to get guns?

 

it's pretty much moot, there are nearly 400 million guns in private hands already in the US, that ship has sailed


  • 0

#70 TxBrewer

TxBrewer

    CrAp Czar

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 20161 posts

Posted 05 August 2019 - 09:11 PM

Not entirely, but people are always saying "what legislation would have prevented this mass shooting?" Do you agree that background checks wouldn't have prevented many? How many times do we keep hearing that these shooters had no criminal record and got their guns legally?


Gun owners have been saying they are not effective against mass shootings but they are the first thing gun grabbers scream for. Kinda like they are pushing for laws they know won't be effective. It's the same argument we have been making for years, they are less interested in preventing shootings than passing agenda items.
  • 0

#71 AspenLeif

AspenLeif

    Comptroller of Gingerliness

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 20152 posts
  • LocationAspen, CO

Posted 05 August 2019 - 09:26 PM

Exactly. Unwilling to consider even discussing it, just like I said.

I am. Because given an inch, they'll take a foot. And any additional restrictions to stop 0.000000001% of a population is an emotional response, not a logical one. But you know that.

Edited by AspenLeif, 05 August 2019 - 09:26 PM.

  • 0

#72 AspenLeif

AspenLeif

    Comptroller of Gingerliness

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 20152 posts
  • LocationAspen, CO

Posted 06 August 2019 - 04:08 AM

Law abiding gun owners have nothing to gain, and everything to lose when it comes to emotional legislation. That’s why you won’t see many belly up to the negotiating table.
  • 0

#73 Trub L

Trub L

    Hooked on a Feelin

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 108843 posts
  • LocationIn the Middle

Posted 06 August 2019 - 04:10 AM

Would you really consider yourself to live in a free country if you did not have freedom of speech? That's the First.

Would you say you lived in a few country of you weren't protected from random search and seizure? If you were subject to warrantless anything they wanted? That's the Fourth.

Would you say you were free if you didn't have a right to a fair trial? If you could be forced to testify against yourself? 5th.

This is a low fecking bar, Man, not a "narrow definition."

All of this.

The "why can't we be more like Sweden" crowd tends to lose its shit when you point out reasons why we're not like Sweden. :D

Edited by Trub L, 06 August 2019 - 04:10 AM.

  • 0

#74 thool

thool

    Comptroller of Great Pendulous Videos

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3657 posts
  • LocationRochester, NY

Posted 06 August 2019 - 05:18 AM

This really isn't a legislation problem. What do you think is going to happen if someone fails a background check and is still dead set about harming people to make an ideological statement?

We have a society that provides fertile ground for crackpot ideas to gain credibility. Those misguided people find comfort and validation, and ideas sometimes turn into action.
  • 0

#75 Sidney Porter

Sidney Porter

    Comptroller of the Banninated

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 22268 posts
  • LocationColumbus OH

Posted 06 August 2019 - 05:38 AM

It's funny that you said this when George said he was behind background checks as long as they are free and records aren't kept.

free is going to increase the timeline. And since we know nothing is free where is the money going to come from to run and maintain the system.

As far as record keeping. I actually think illegal strawman purchases in gang activities is a bigger deal than mass shootings. Record keeping and sharing could allow the police to go after those criminals.
  • 0

#76 TxBrewer

TxBrewer

    CrAp Czar

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 20161 posts

Posted 06 August 2019 - 11:36 AM

free is going to increase the timeline. And since we know nothing is free where is the money going to come from to run and maintain the system.

As far as record keeping. I actually think illegal strawman purchases in gang activities is a bigger deal than mass shootings. Record keeping and sharing could allow the police to go after those criminals.


If they keep an ongoing record of Steve bought this gun with this serial number you now have a registry and gun owners will fight that.

I am good with a small fee say 25.00 per check whether you are buying one or transferring all twenty of your grandparents collection.
  • 0

#77 the_stain

the_stain

    Phat O'Mic Chef Winner!

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 80462 posts

Posted 06 August 2019 - 11:38 AM

If they keep an ongoing record of Steve bought this gun with this serial number you now have a registry and gun owners will fight that.


Sounds like gun owners don't really want to contribute to solving the problem...
  • 0

#78 TxBrewer

TxBrewer

    CrAp Czar

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 20161 posts

Posted 06 August 2019 - 11:43 AM

Sounds like gun owners don't really want to contribute to solving the problem...


I don't see where you got that from my post. I know that I will not support the government keeping a registry of guns. How that becomes not contributing to solving the problem though is on you. I don't see how registries would prevent mass shootings. You will have to explain that correlation
  • 0

#79 KSUwildcatFAN

KSUwildcatFAN

    Comptroller of ChopSticks & Ghey Bach Chow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 6186 posts
  • LocationKC Area

Posted 06 August 2019 - 11:46 AM

In what way, any kind of way, could you legislate an even somewhat accurate way to identify people willing to kill needlessly? It seems virtually impossible.
  • 0

#80 the_stain

the_stain

    Phat O'Mic Chef Winner!

  • Patron
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 80462 posts

Posted 06 August 2019 - 11:46 AM

I'm not saying they would or wouldn't.

But if we agree this issue can be solved, then it will probably take compromise on both sides, and sacrifices.

It seems impossible to compromise when you start by offering a list of things you will never, ever compromise on.
  • 0


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users