Another school shooting - Page 7 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Talk about what you've seen in the news today.

Moderator: PoFo Today's News Mods

#15049730
Statistics can say anything you want them to say, and they will never supersede my own experience...


Oh good Lord. Great statement. A perfect combination of half anti-scientific idiocy and monumental hubris. Way to slam dunk your arguments (such as they are) in 25 words or less.
#15049753
Delete.

Swear to God, gentlemen, i'm just drinking tea. But this sort of fiasco is why I hate autocorrect and computers designed for smurfs.
Last edited by Stormsmith on 20 Nov 2019 08:33, edited 2 times in total.
#15049754
@BigSteve

Re: That's absurd. There has to be a reasonable time limit, otherwise it's an unwarranted restriction of someone's Constitutional right...

Agreed, but it must be balanced between your right to life and quality of the necessary research. If too little time is given, the 'workmanship' is generally shabby and therefore a waste of time and resources. Establishing that might be a case of drawing upon existing research, probably drawn from other states or even countries, but should be reviewed in a year. 1 to 3 weeks is a good guess, and remember, it's only on the first gun. Successive guns should only require a certificate of training if you're changing catagories, or if you're doctor thinks a check up might be life saving.

We're all grown-ups here. We can endure the wait. I'll bet you've waited longer for sex and survived.


@Drlee, Godstud:
Re: Godstud is correct. The best home defense weapon would be a 12 gauge street sweeper close at hand.

Agreed. I can't imagine destroying a couple of kids who decided a little libation and a handful of Cuban cigars...maybe $50.00 to $200 was theirs for the taking. Besides, we have insurance. That said we have a few other guns, some of which would be effective again wildlife. All sorts of creatures from bobcats to bears wander through here. Last time I saw a bear, I headed for the house because I don't carry around long guns, decided the wisest course of action was a quick heads-up call to my sweet baboo was in order, followed by a lovely cup of tea. But I confess to having succumbed to a healthy shot of Glenlivet. There was a bear outside, for Pete's sake....it might be my last shot. Make it a good one.

I wonder if the term wild life had anything to do with whiskey?
Last edited by Stormsmith on 20 Nov 2019 08:23, edited 1 time in total.
#15049764
With 46% of the population having access to a firearm, the mad and the bad included, you will never stop the killing. So it boils down to a question of how many deaths and woundings are acceptable.

Choices....

a) Do nothing - On average, 32,000 dead and 60,000 wounded per annum at a cost to the US economy of $229 billion annually.

or

b) Reduce that number (and the costs) by legislation, by introducing mandatory background checks, mental health checks, magazine limits, banning certain types, etc, etc.

What is to be done?


:eh:
Last edited by ingliz on 20 Nov 2019 14:40, edited 2 times in total.
#15049772
The answer would be "b)" in any reasonable civilized society.
#15049787
Drlee wrote:Well we had another couple of children killed in a school shooting. I waited a couple of days before posting this to see if anyone else did. Unless I missed a post this is the first one.

And there you have it. Dead kids and not a word and not a chance of action on the elephant in the corner. :roll:

#15049794
Stormsmith wrote:@BigSteve

Re: That's absurd. There has to be a reasonable time limit, otherwise it's an unwarranted restriction of someone's Constitutional right...

Agreed, but it must be balanced between your right to life and quality of the necessary research. If too little time is given, the 'workmanship' is generally shabby and therefore a waste of time and resources. Establishing that might be a case of drawing upon existing research, probably drawn from other states or even countries, but should be reviewed in a year. 1 to 3 weeks is a good guess, and remember, it's only on the first gun. Successive guns should only require a certificate of training if you're changing catagories, or if you're doctor thinks a check up might be life saving.


Three weeks is way too long; just ridiculous.

And I would love to know how anyone's "right to life" is threatened by another person buying a gun. If someone wants to kill someone, the gun is just a symptom of a larger problem that should be addressed.

And where would someone obtain a "certificate of training"? Will there be a cost for that training? Will the government pay for that training? After all, we're still talking about a Constitutionally protected right.

A person shouldn't have to pay money to exercise his rights. Let's start charging libs for exercising their 1st Amendment rights if they post stupid their idiocy on the internet. Let's charge someone if they don't want to let the police search their car during a traffic stop. Those are Constitutional rights, too...
#15049796
Three weeks, for your first gun(we're guessing, since it normally doesn't take even that long for background checks), is not that long.

Having to be certified or trained isn't a bad thing. Just because it's a right, doesn't mean it's free. I am sure that police officers and Vets could waive the training , provided they could provide some evidence of having been trained. If you're going to pay a bunch of money on a gun, a bit more won't kill you, since you aren't paying registration or licensing fees, and you aren't required to have any liability insurance. This would likely reduce the instances of firearm accidents, at the very least.

The NRA could give free certification courses, with a membership. :D

Unlike other rights, this one is providing you with the potential to kill others. It's not comparable to freedom of speech. Even then, if you issue threats, that freedom of speech right can be revoked.
#15049798
ingliz wrote:You will never stop the killing. So if that is a given, it boils down to a question of how many deaths and woundings are acceptable.

Choices....

a) Do nothing - On average, 32,000 dead and 60,000 wounded per annum at a cost to the US economy of $229 billion annually.

or

b) Reduce that number (and the costs) by legislation, by introducing mandatory background checks, mental health checks, magazine limits, banning certain types, etc, etc.

What is to be done?
:eh:


Every day, 11 teens die in texting-related auto accidents. Some are driving, some are not. According to the United States Department of Transportation, cell phones are involved in a whopping 1.6 million auto crashes each year, causing half a million injuries and prompting 6,000 deaths annually.

In many states, it's illegal to use a cell phone while you're driving. Why not just ban cell phones to help solve this problem which injures over 500,000people a year? That would be easy to do, since owning a cell phone isn't a Constitutionally protected right. Maybe we can add a new fee to cell phone contracts, the amount of which gets paid to the government for the safety training someone should have to take before getting a cell phone.

https://teensafe.com/texting-and-driving-crashes-facts-and-statistics/

Serious question. Why are we so damned and determined to put all of these restrictions on a Constitutionally protected right, but we do little to make safer those things which aren't Constitutionally protected?
#15049799
Comparing ACCIDENTS to intentional shootings is a logical fallacy. You know that, right?

BigSteve wrote:Every day, 11 teens die in texting-related auto accidents. Some are driving, some are not. According to the United States Department of Transportation, cell phones are involved in a whopping 1.6 million auto crashes each year, causing half a million injuries and prompting 6,000 deaths annually.
You are also required, by law, to be licensed, have liability insurance, have your vehicle registered, and to obey a great many regulatory laws in relation to a motor vehicle.

Also, the purpose of a motor vehicle is to transport people, not to kill. That's an important factor. Also, something which you fail to account for, is the proliferation of car owners, and continual use on a daily basis. I doubt few gun owners will ever shoot as much as they drive a car.

BigSteve wrote:Why are we so damned and determined to put all of these restrictions on a Constitutionally protected right, but we do little to make safer those things which aren't Constitutionally protected?
Traffic laws are perhaps one of the most enforced set of laws in the USA/Canada/UK, etc., and driving a car is not Constitutionally protected. Far more is done to make cars and driving safer, than is done to make guns, and gun users, "safer".

BigSteve wrote:In many states, it's illegal to use a cell phone while you're driving.
Yes, it is, and this law is enforced. Since the problem has arisen, they have made laws to combat this behavior.

Banning phones? :roll: Please treat this argument with the seriousness it deserves.
#15049800
Godstud wrote:Three weeks, for your first gun(we're guessing, since it normally doesn't take even that long for background checks), is not that long.


Yes, it's too long...

Having to be certified or trained isn't a bad thing.


I don't know anyone who argues differently...

Just because it's a right, doesn't mean it's free.


So, you're supportive of the concept of charging people to exercise their Constitutionally protected rights?

I am sure that police officers and Vets could waive the training , provided they could provide some evidence of having been trained.


No one becomes a cop without being trained, so their badge would be evidence of such training. The military doesn't necessarily provide comprehensive firearms training; it's job dependent. In Florida, a DD-214 is sufficient to obtain a CCW without a training course...

If you're going to pay a bunch of money on a gun, a bit more won't kill you, since you aren't paying registration or licensing fees, and you aren't required to have any liability insurance. This would likely reduce the instances of firearm accidents, at the very least.


Again, no argument. And I'm glad to see you in favor of not requiring registration, since that makes no one safer...

The NRA could give free certification courses, with a membership.


When I was a kid in New York, I was in Boy Scouts. During our summer camp at Baiting Hollow Boy Scout Camp (I don't know if it still exists) we received firearms safety training, for both target and skeet shooting, from an NRA certified instructor. They did that for years until some liberal dipshit Congressman from Long Island decided it was too "violent".

At least there, the NRA did provide such training. Thanks to liberals they no longer do...

Unlike other rights, this one is providing you with the potential to kill others. It's not comparable to freedom of speech. Even then, if you issue threats, that freedom of speech right can be revoked.


I have no right to drive a car, yet roughly the same amount of people are killed every year by automobiles. Why do we do nothing to address that?
#15049803
Godstud wrote:Comparing ACCIDENTS to intentional shootings is a logical fallacy. You know that, right?

You are also required, by law, to be licensed, have liability insurance, have your vehicle registered, and to obey a great many regulatory laws in relation to a motor vehicle.

Also, the purpose of a motor vehicle is to transport people, not to kill. That's an important factor. Also, something which you fail to account for, is the proliferation of car owners, and continual use on a daily basis. I doubt few gun owners will ever shoot as much as they drive a car.

Traffic laws are perhaps one of the most enforced set of laws in the USA/Canada/UK, etc., and driving a car is not Constitutionally protected. Far more is done to make cars and driving safer, than is done to make guns, and gun users, "safer".

Yes, it is, and this law is enforced. Since the problem has arisen, they have made laws to combat this behavior.

Banning phones? :roll: Please treat this argument with the seriousness it deserves.


Why would you not want to address a problem which is responsible for so many deaths and injuries a year?

Traffic laws are proof positive that enacting laws don't make people safer. They don't make shitty drivers suddenly drive like Jackie Stewart. Despite the mountain of laws on the books, people are still killed and injured every single day by automobiles.

And you have no desire to see anything done about that...
#15049806
Drlee wrote:Oh good Lord. Great statement. A perfect combination of half anti-scientific idiocy and monumental hubris. Way to slam dunk your arguments (such as they are) in 25 words or less.


If you drive down the street and routinely hit a pothole, but DOT studies show that drivers routinely do not hit that pothole, are you suddenly believe you're not hitting that pothole?

No, you'll say that, despite what the studies indicate, your experience is that hitting that pothole is a problem...
#15049808
BigSteve wrote:Why would you not want to address a problem which is responsible for so many deaths and injuries a year?
They do address that with training, education and laws.

BigSteve wrote:Traffic laws are proof positive that enacting laws don't make people safer.
That's patently false. Traffic laws enforce speed limits in school zones. Traffic laws enforce safety regulations for cars and motorbikes. Traffic laws make commercial vehicles safer by requiring safety checks, good maintenance, and even limiting hours that operates can operate.

Car manufacturers have to make safer cars. They put a great many civil engineers to work to make the roads safer. The list is extremely long, when it comes to traffic laws and regulation of motor vehicles.

BigSteve wrote:They don't make shitty drivers suddenly drive like Jackie Stewart.
No, but they can make them safe enough drivers that they don't hit everything like a bumper-car.

BigSteve wrote:And you have no desire to see anything done about that...
Appeal to Emotion noted. We're not discussing traffic laws, but there is already things being done. Few things, if any, are done when it comes to guns.

Look at how angered you are by a simple thing such as having to wait for a few weeks before being able to own your first gun.
#15049811
Godstud wrote:They do address that with training, education and laws.


And, yet, look how many are killed and injured every year despite that training, education and laws...

That's patently false. Traffic laws enforce speed limits in school zones. Traffic laws enforce safety regulations for cars and motorbikes.


I'm about to head out to Orlando. On that drive, if I'm doing 80mph I'll be getting passed like people are getting paid for it. There's virtually no enforcement between here and Orlando. The same can be said for when I drive to Atlanta or Miami.

Laws accomplish little...

Traffic laws make commercial vehicles safer by requiring safety checks, good maintenance...


Um, no.

I don't have to have my car inspected for safety, and the state of Florida does not require that I perform maintenance. Perhaps this is an example of how laws in mud-hut countries differ from civilized countries...

and even limiting hours that operates can operate.


I'm not even sure what that nonsense is.

If you're trying to say that there are laws which limit the hours that I can drive, no, there aren't. I can drive anytime I want, for as long as I want...

Car manufacturers have to make safer cars. They put a great many civil engineers to work to make the roads safer. The list is extremely long, when it comes to traffic laws and regulation of motor vehicles.


Agreed. And, again, despite all of those laws and regulations thousands are killed every year...

No, but they can make them safe enough drivers that they don't hit everything like a bumper-car.


I never took a driver's ed class. My Mom and Dad taught me to drive.

Somehow, without the benefit of formal training, I manage to not hit other cars...

Appeal to Emotion noted. We're not discussing traffic laws, but there is already things being done. Few things, if any, are done when it comes to guns.


Far more people use cars than guns, and I would be willing to bet a far higher percentage operate motor vehicles in an unsafe manner than gun owners...

Look at how angered you are by a simple thing such as having to wait for a few weeks before being able to own your first gun.


Angered? Not really. I do, however, take mild offense when someone who lives in fucking Thailand, where it's illegal to own a .22 caliber bullet if you only own a 9mm, thinks he can speak intelligently about what US law should be...
#15049813
And I would love to know how anyone's "right to life" is threatened by another person buying a gun.
If someone wants to kill someone, the gun is just a symptom of a larger problem that should be addressed.


No it is not a symptom. It is the means to do it infinitely more efficiently than with a club. :roll:

And where would someone obtain a "certificate of training"? Will there be a cost for that training? Will the government pay for that training? After all, we're still talking about a Constitutionally protected right.


You have no constitutionally protected right to own a gun without training. The SCOTUS has already decided that with the registration laws. The government has the right to regulate what you might own and the conditions under which you may own it.

A person shouldn't have to pay money to exercise his rights.


Why not? You have to pay money to exercise just about all of your rights. In this case the very act of obtaining a gun requires that you pay money. :roll:

Let's start charging libs for exercising their 1st Amendment rights if they post stupid their idiocy on the internet.


That is just about as ignorant a statement as I have ever heard on POFO.


Let's charge someone if they don't want to let the police search their car during a traffic stop. Those are Constitutional rights, too...


No. This is even more ignorant. Two winners in one post. WTG.

When I was a kid in New York, I was in Boy Scouts. During our summer camp at Baiting Hollow Boy Scout Camp (I don't know if it still exists) we received firearms safety training, for both target and skeet shooting, from an NRA certified instructor. They did that for years until some liberal dipshit Congressman from Long Island decided it was too "violent".


And you just decided to make that lie up. Do not play us for fools. Here is a quote from Baiting Hallow Boy Scout Camp's website schedule under special events:

Cub Scout Shooting Sports Day

Fall 2019 dates are SOLD OUT. Please check back in March for spring 2020 dates.

Shotgun Shooting Merit Badge Day


Maybe the "libs" bought all the tickets. :moron:

I have no right to drive a car, yet roughly the same amount of people are killed every year by automobiles. Why do we do nothing to address that?


Noting to address that? :lol: You mean like...

"Requiring a license to drive?"

Placing very specific laws about what you can drive, where, how fast, what safety equipment, on what roads, how those roads should be constructed, and by which of dozens of local, state and federal agencies and law enforcement people these rules are enforced?

BigSteve wrote:
Every day, 11 teens die in texting-related auto accidents. Some are driving, some are not. According to the United States Department of Transportation, cell phones are involved in a whopping 1.6 million auto crashes each year, causing half a million injuries and prompting 6,000 deaths annually.


Very good example. (Assuming your statistics are true and not understating the problem.) And that is why in my bright red state, for example, one has to be training how to drive which includes learning why it is unsafe to text and drive. We have severe fines for violating this law. Teen passengers are taught not to allow the drivers to text and drive. Parents can install aps on their children's cell phones that turn them off when the kids are driving. And there is more.....

Well BigSteve. When you are not just making shit up to suit your argument you are very good at making the argument for the other side.

The bottom line though, as I keep pointing out, is that you have made exactly no argument against the statistics that many of us have posted and it seems the best you can do is some vague notion that two wrongs make a right and libs.......

This is, for our overseas friends who must be rolling their eyes at this thread, is exactly why the ignorance on the right allows them to be so badly manipulated.

If you drive down the street and routinely hit a pothole, but DOT studies show that drivers routinely do not hit that pothole, are you suddenly believe you're not hitting that pothole?

No, you'll say that, despite what the studies indicate, your experience is that hitting that pothole is a problem...


It may be because I am a Mensa member and therefor omniscient but I tend to look out for potholes and even if I am careless and hit one I remember where the pot hole is and do not hit it again. Then I call my local authorities and whine until they fix it because I do not want someone to get hurt hitting the aforementioned pothole. Come to think of it even some of my non Mensa friends do just this same thing. What do you think that means?
#15049814
Godstud wrote:laws

If I was a US legislator, I would pass two laws and they would be mandatory registration upon purchase (no gun show loophole, 80% lowers, or grey guns) and make the owner personally responsible for anything his firearm is used for. If his gun stolen and is used by another in a murder, he is an accessory; a robbery the same; accidentally discharged by another, he is negligent, etc, etc.
Last edited by ingliz on 20 Nov 2019 15:19, edited 4 times in total.
By B0ycey
#15049815
You'll never bring sense
To gun nuts @Godstud. With any luck @BigSteve will be involved within a mass shooting and he will have a great opportunity to tell the gunman how he is proud that his was able to buy his guns unregulated.

Nonetheless BigSteve. I am interested. What well regulated Militia are you part of?
#15049821
BigSteve wrote:Image


Does this logic hold for other weapons of war, such as tanks, missiles, bio/chem weapons and nukes too, or is it just rifles?
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 11

And here is the proof of what I am saying. This […]

How to become an EU citizen

I'm sorry, but none of that makes any sense whats[…]

Divine decadence empowers fascists

But what about the sexual culture in the SA leade[…]

@Truth To Power You still do not understand. Y[…]