You are not logged in. Please register or login.

mitchejw
 Rep: 129 

Re: US Politics Thread

mitchejw wrote:
Brett wrote:
Randall Flagg wrote:
mitchejw wrote:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/listening-se … 54901.html

So...this was probably pretty predictable...

I think we're going to have a pretty hard time making the distinction between school and prison in the near future.


I don’t understand why putting armed police officers or trained and armed teachers in the class room is so controversial. Either you want practical solutions or you don’t. There’s over 300 million guns out there. They’re not going anywhere.

Get a job you fucking idiot.

What the fuck are you talking about? I do have a job....I employee over 20 people you ass fuk.

Judging by the way you express yourself through writing I'm going to guess the only thing you're qualified for is smashing rocks together for a living or maybe one of those sweet mining jobs in West Virginia with a  life expectancy of 49 years.

Go get one those jobs, knuckle dragger.

TheMole
 Rep: 77 

Re: US Politics Thread

TheMole wrote:
misterID wrote:

Hey dufus, our population and population in relation to guns is COMPLETELY different. Ban guns? There's more guns than people by millions, the trade would get MORE dangerous.

Talk about special little snowflakes huh... "America is so special, the people are so different, what works in other countries will never work for us, 'cause you know... we're special..."

Lot of good your legal gun trade does you... "hey, that mass murderer bought that gun fair and square, and we can see exactly where he bought it, where he got his license, etc...". Whoopty fucking doo...
LL3vNTw.gif

Look, I know I'm being an ass, I know there's cultural sensitivities that I'm probably missing or just flat out ignoring. I do understand it's hard to convince a nation of gun lovers to make certain changes. The fact that it's hard doesn't mean it's not the right approach.

See, I don't really think the problem in the US is gun legislation at all, I think the problem is gun glorification. America's gun laws are only somewhat less strict than comparably advanced and free countries, certainly not to the extent that it would lead to a 10-fold increase in gun violence. There are 5 times more murders per capita in the US compared to the UK, 6 times more than in Germany, 8 times more than in France, 12 times more than in Japan. I'm specifically quoting numbers for homicides in general 'cause I don't want people to weasel out of this by saying knives and baseball bats kill people too. And just to be clear, the numbers for gun-related homicides are even more diverging and make the US look even worse.

To the point of gun legislation though, consider the following: in the US one in three households owns one or more firearms; in Germany, it's one in 9 (one third), in France one in 8 (almost half). Just to compare, gun legislation in France for example is fairly loose. Everyone is allowed to own a gun, under the following conditions:

  • They are 18 years old (16 if they compete in international shooting competitions)

  • Have a hunting license, or are affiliated with a shooting range

  • Pass a medical check

You know, fairly simple stuff, similar to getting a driver's license. If you want to buy a semi-automatic rifle you do need to also attend at least three lessons with a professional instructor, and that license is only valid for 5 years, but still... fairly straightforward.

So given that the people in those countries are just as free to own a gun as you Americans are, why do the French, British, Germans, etc... not own more guns per capita then? The answer is SUPER simple... it's simply not a thing for them... it doesn't make them feel "free", or "in charge". They don't look at guns as their last and only line of defense. Most people in Europe will look at a machine designed to kill people in disgust, while a lot of Americans (I hesitate to say "most", but certainly the most vocal part) look at a gun and see it as a symbol of freedom. That's what's wrong with the US, that's what needs to be changed.

So no, I do not think lax gun legislation is the reason for America's gun woes. However, stricter gun legislation is needed to send a signal to gun lovers that change is coming, to stop that knee-jerk reaction some even on this very forum have to "get more good guys with guns to fight the bad guys with guns". Guns are not a solution, going into an arms race with idiots, the scum of society, is never a good idea.

And THAT is what Australia did so effectively, change the mindset about guns...
So before you dismiss what has worked in other countries on some vaguely defined premise of being "different", consider if you really want to be "different" from the rest of the free world in this regard. "different" might in this case simply be another word for "worse".

mitchejw
 Rep: 129 

Re: US Politics Thread

mitchejw wrote:
Randall Flagg wrote:

Ohio Sheriff offers firearm training course to interested teachers following Florida shooting.  Is overwhelmed with signups.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/florida-high … 40723.html

"NO TEACHERS WANT TO BE ARMED! I KNOW MY TRUTH!"

Fine Flagg....I mean...I'm of the sentiment that we have to try something...anything different than what we've done for the past 20 years.

But hear me out on this....moving in this direction will dramatically increase the number of guns in a school. A gun is a tool with no other purpose than killing. Why would you not think that there is a positive correlation between the number of guns available and the number of deaths.

I'm willing to possibly concede this point because....basically....Americans hate each other. They really do....now more than ever...
All we want to do is hurt each other....with our words, and weapons and our guns. Maybe that's why other countries don't understand us. To be American is to hate. To hate on crying children and the victims, to hate Trump, to hate guns, to blame unarmed teachers for this....

Guns are like a cancerous tumor on American society, and nobody is seriously looking for the cure.

You're all for regulations and restrictions on voting...but don't touch my guns.

Randall Flagg
 Rep: 135 

Re: US Politics Thread

mitchejw wrote:
Brett wrote:
Randall Flagg wrote:

I don’t understand why putting armed police officers or trained and armed teachers in the class room is so controversial. Either you want practical solutions or you don’t. There’s over 300 million guns out there. They’re not going anywhere.

Get a job you fucking idiot.

What the fuck are you talking about? I do have a job....I employee over 20 people you ass fuk.

Judging by the way you express yourself through writing I'm going to guess the only thing you're qualified for is smashing rocks together for a living or maybe one of those sweet mining jobs in West Virginia with a  life expectancy of 49 years.

Go get one those jobs, knuckle dragger.


Who are you talking at?  I didn't post that if it was at me?  Brett posted that attack at me.

Randall Flagg
 Rep: 135 

Re: US Politics Thread

I’m an American.  I own approximately 40 guns, all but 4 I inherited from my father when he passed away.  I have every civilian variant of American military rifles since the 1903 Springfield that America used in WW1, to include a few AR-15s (the civilian M-16 variant).  I have every civilian variant of Russian military rifles since WW2, to include a few SAR-1s (the civilian AK-47 variant) I have numerous handguns, and shotguns and several bolt action rifles of various calibers most people would call hunting weapons.  I keep every single gun (save the hand gun I have in my night stand) locked in safes that only I know the combination to.

I just completed my 22nd year of deer hunting.  Despite the small arsenal of firearms I own and their potential for lethality, I have never aimed my weapons (including the 12 months I was in Iraq) at another human being, let alone fire one or actually harmed another human being.  I was trained on and at various times equipped with every type of machine gun or small crew serve weapon in the United States military’s arsenal.  At no time did I take the M-60, 240B, SAW, M-203 grenade launcher, MK-19 Grenade Launcher or M2 50 caliber machine gun and aim them at another human being or fire in the general direction of another human being (including the 12 months I was in Iraq).

I shoot my 30-06 hunting rifle twice a year – once in the days before deer season to ensure my scope is still accurate and once during deer season should a deer I desire to take cross my path. 

I’m not saying this because I think I’m unique or to brag, but to point out how fucking ordinary and average I am.  Like the other 99.999% of Americans out there with access to these weapons, I’ve never harmed another human being with a firearm.

Regardless of my personal opinion, I acknowledge that the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled in District of Columbia v Heller in 2008 that “that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee”

Furthermore, I acknowledge that the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed in McDonald v. Chicago in 2010 that “that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" as protected under the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states.” Making it illegal to ban handguns or place extraneous requirements to legally acquire a firearm.

So before we go any further, if your suggestion is to remove/ban guns or “make it harder” to get guns, you have Heller and Chicago to deal with.  “JUST DO SOMETHING” as is commonly echoed by the uniformed isn’t an answer.  I encourage you to look at the requirements the city of Chicago had to get firearms before SCOTUS struck them down as an example of how much leeway the courts will allow.

You need 2/3 of Congress and ¾ of the states to ratify any change to the constitution to make this happen.  You’re welcome to fantasize, but you can’t demand things that aren’t in the realm of reality.  Removing the 2nd Amendment isn’t happening in our life time.

I know that the no one can answer how many people are killed by an assault rifle every year, because no one tracks the figure.  But the FBI does categorize rifles, by which all assault rifles fall under.  And we know that of the approximately 11,000 Americans murdered every year, roughly 300 are done with a rifle.  Here are the stats for 2016, the last year the FBI has full data: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/20 … able-4.xls

With 11,004 firearm murders in 2016, 374 were with rifles.  As stated earlier, the FBI doesn’t break down assault rifles or hunting rifles, so total rifle use in American firearm murders is 3.3%  So even if we pretended that all of those were AR-15s or other assault rifles, they’re only 3% of murders.  But I wanted to go a step further and look at the mass shootings of the same year and see how many were with any assault rifle, so I did.  According to Wikipedia, there were 16 mass shootings in 2016.  I know that the definition of mass shootings varies and there’s a lot of progressive sites that want to expand that number, but the FBI definition is a shooting in which 4 or more people die.  Which is what Wikipedia used: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category: … ted_States

I broke them down below by location.  Some shootings had multiple firearms used, but anytime an assault weapon was present, I counted all deaths.  The only caveat to my data is that the Pablo Antonio Serrano shooting took place over a couple of days and all death haven’t been proven in court to be his doing, but for argument sake I have counted them fully.  And the answer is 77 people were killed by an assault weapon (a little over half was an AR-15 variant).  That means that mass shootings with an assault rifle accounted for 0.6% of all firearm murders in 2016. 

49 Orlando, 4 Baton Rouge, 0 Cascade, 0 Citrollene, 6 Dallas,  0 Freightcar, 4 Hesston, 0 Kalmazoo, 0 Madison School, 3 Mukilteo, 0 Pike County (an alleged cartel murder), (5)Pablo Antonio Serrano, 0 St. Joseph, 0 Townville, 6 Wilkinsburg
Please feel free to challenge my math and provide alternative figures.

We can all speculate about whether SCOTUS would tolerate a true assault weapons ban.  SCOTUS has refused to take the issue up as of yet.  The Assault Weapon Ban of 1994 had no impact on crime according to numerous studies.  And more importantly, it didn’t ban assault weapons.  I’m not going to narrate why, but show you a simple image of an AR-15 made before 1994 (or after 2004) and one made between 1994 – 2004:

AeozIz4.jpg

Notice that the only difference is at the end of each rifle.  The post ban rifle was not legally allowed to have a flash suppressor (to make the explosion at the end of the barrel less visible for concealment purposes) and a bayonet lug (to be able to attach a bayonet).  The type of ammunition, ability to have a high capacity magazine and its semi-automatic functionality were all unaffected.  Since stabbing people with a bayonet and trying to hide your location at night aren’t used by mass shooters, it’s easy to see why the AWB of 1994 had no impact on crime and was an utterly feel good legislation. 

So the question becomes do we want to deny law abiding Americans who undergo a thorough background check because .6% of all murders with a firearm use this particular weapon? 

Even if we magically removed all assault weapons from existence, we’re still not having any kind of significant impact onto firearm fatalities in the United States.

So feel free to put forth opinions or misconceptions.  But none of you (save MisterID) have put forth the effort I just did to construct this argument.  You haven’t demonstrated what laws could be passed that would have any meaningful impact on firearm fatalities that occur annually in the US.

As I stated pages ago, “Do Something!” is the mantra of the uninformed.  And we shouldn’t celebrate people who spread misinformation and fear for political gain.  Especially when said fear is being used as justification to deny law-abiding Americans the ability to exercise a defined and settled right.

mitchejw
 Rep: 129 

Re: US Politics Thread

mitchejw wrote:
Randall Flagg wrote:
mitchejw wrote:
Brett wrote:

Get a job you fucking idiot.

What the fuck are you talking about? I do have a job....I employee over 20 people you ass fuk.

Judging by the way you express yourself through writing I'm going to guess the only thing you're qualified for is smashing rocks together for a living or maybe one of those sweet mining jobs in West Virginia with a  life expectancy of 49 years.

Go get one those jobs, knuckle dragger.


Who are you talking at?  I didn't post that if it was at me?  Brett posted that attack at me.

It looked like an attack on both of us...maybe I misinterpreted.

mitchejw
 Rep: 129 

Re: US Politics Thread

mitchejw wrote:
Randall Flagg wrote:

I’m an American.  I own approximately 40 guns, all but 4 I inherited from my father when he passed away.  I have every civilian variant of American military rifles since the 1903 Springfield that America used in WW1, to include a few AR-15s (the civilian M-16 variant).  I have every civilian variant of Russian military rifles since WW2, to include a few SAR-1s (the civilian AK-47 variant) I have numerous handguns, and shotguns and several bolt action rifles of various calibers most people would call hunting weapons.  I keep every single gun (save the hand gun I have in my night stand) locked in safes that only I know the combination to.

I just completed my 22nd year of deer hunting.  Despite the small arsenal of firearms I own and their potential for lethality, I have never aimed my weapons (including the 12 months I was in Iraq) at another human being, let alone fire one or actually harmed another human being.  I was trained on and at various times equipped with every type of machine gun or small crew serve weapon in the United States military’s arsenal.  At no time did I take the M-60, 240B, SAW, M-203 grenade launcher, MK-19 Grenade Launcher or M2 50 caliber machine gun and aim them at another human being or fire in the general direction of another human being (including the 12 months I was in Iraq).
I shoot my 30-06 hunting rifle twice a year – once in the days before deer season to ensure my scope is still accurate and once during deer season should a deer I desire to take cross my path. 

I’m not saying this because I think I’m unique or to brag, but to point out have fucking ordinary and average I am.  Like the other 99.999% of Americans out there with access to these weapons, I’ve never harmed another human being with a firearm.

Regardless of my personal opinion, I acknowledge that the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled in District of Columbia v Heller in 2008 that “that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee”

Furthermore, I acknowledge that the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed in McDonald v. Chicago in 2010 that “that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" as protected under the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states.” Making it illegal to ban handguns or place extraneous requirements to legally acquire a firearm.

So before we go any further, if your suggestion is to remove/ban guns or “make it harder” to get guns, you have Heller and Chicago to deal with.  “JUST DO SOMETHING” as is commonly echoed by the uniformed isn’t an answer.  I encourage you to look at the requirements the city of Chicago had to get firearms before SCOTUS struck them down as an example of how much leeway the courts will allow.

You need 2/3 of Congress and ¾ of the states to ratify any change to the constitution to make this happen.  You’re welcome to fantasize, but you can’t demand things that aren’t in the realm of reality.  Removing the 2nd Amendment isn’t happening in our life time.

I know that the no one can answer how many people are killed by an assault rifle every year, because no one tracks the figure.  But the FBI does categorize rifles, by which all assault rifles fall under.  And we know that of the approximately 11,000 Americans murdered every year, roughly 300 are done with a rifle.  Here are the stats for 2016, the last year the FBI has full data: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/20 … able-4.xls

With 11,004 firearm murders in 2016, 374 were with rifles.  As stated earlier, the FBI doesn’t break down assault rifles or hunting rifles, so total rifle use in American firearm murders is 3.3%  So even if we pretended that all of those were AR-15s or other assault rifles, they’re only 3% of murders.  But I wanted to go a step further and look at the mass shootings of the same year and see how many were with any assault rifle, so I did.  According to Wikipedia, there were 16 mass shootings in 2016.  I know that the definition of mass shootings varies and there’s a lot of progressive sites that want to expand that number, but the FBI definition is a shooting in which 4 or more people die.  Which is what Wikipedia used: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category: … ted_States

I broke them down below by location.  Some shootings had multiple firearms used, but anytime an assault weapon was present, I counted all deaths.  The only caveat to my data is that the Pablo Antonio Serrano shooting took place over a couple of days and all death haven’t been proven in court to be his doing, but for argument sake I have counted them fully.  And the answer is 77 people were killed by an assault weapon (a little over half was an AR-15 variant).  That means that mass shootings with an assault rifle accounted for 0.6% of all firearm murders in 2016. 

49 Orlando, 4 Baton Rouge, 0 Cascade, 0 Citrollene, 6 Dallas,  0 Freightcar, 4 Hesston, 0 Kalmazoo, 0 Madison School, 3 Mukilteo, 0 Pike County (an alleged cartel murder), (5)Pablo Antonio Serrano, 0 St. Joseph, 0 Townville, 6 Wilkinsburg
Please feel free to challenge my math and provide alternative figures.

We can all speculate about whether SCOTUS would tolerate a true assault weapons ban.  SCOTUS has refused to take the issue up as of yet.  The Assault Weapon Ban of 1994 had no impact on crime according to numerous studies.  And more importantly, it didn’t ban assault weapons.  I’m not going to narrate why, but show you a simple image of an AR-15 made before 1994 (or after 2004) and one made between 1994 – 2004:

http://i.imgur.com/AeozIz4.jpg

Notice that the only difference is at the end of each rifle.  The post ban rifle was not legally allowed to have a flash suppressor (to make the explosion at the end of the barrel less visible for concealment purposes) and a bayonet lug (to be able to attach a bayonet).  The type of ammunition, ability to have a high capacity magazine and its semi-automatic functionality were all unaffected.  Since stabbing people with a bayonet and trying to hide your location at night aren’t used by mass shooters, it’s easy to see why the AWB of 1994 had no impact on crime and was an utterly feel good legislation. 

So the question becomes do we want to deny law abiding Americans who undergo a thorough background check because .6% of all murders with a firearm use this particular weapon? 

Even if we magically removed all assault weapons from existence, we’re still not having any kind of significant impact onto firearm fatalities in the United States.

So feel free to put forth opinions or misconceptions.  But none of you (save MisterID) have put forth the effort I just did to construct this argument.  You haven’t demonstrated what laws could be passed that would have any meaningful impact on firearm fatalities that occur annually in the US.

As I stated pages ago, “Do Something!” is the mantra of the uninformed.  And we shouldn’t celebrate people who spread misinformation and fear for political gain.  Especially when said fear is being used as justification to deny law-abiding Americans the ability to exercise a defined and settled right.

Interesting stuff for sure...I'm alarmed that anyone would have or want 40 total guns in their possession. I never argued for a certain type of gun to be more regulated or what not.

I'm not interested in owning a gun and I do not want the responsibility of having one. That being said, I have a family now and it's something I seriously considered in the last 18 months or so. I have pulled the trigger on a gun maybe 10 times in my life and I can't say I liked it. I know and understand more about the strong precedent of court cases that show the supreme court and the constitution support this right.

The solution I advocated for (which I guess is not one Dems are pitching) was regarding education and mental health. I think the analysis of this issue gets much simpler when you look at an individual and say....'what on god's green earth was going so wrong here that you thought your best option in life was to go on a rampage?'

But you can't say it's a mental health issue and then not offer mental healthcare. That's where you have me going in circles.

And at the end of the day, you're never going to convince me that more guns is the solution with theory. Now if we implement this policy and for some odd reason school shooting go down...then great! Do more of whatever works.

Randall Flagg
 Rep: 135 

Re: US Politics Thread

mitchejw wrote:

Interesting stuff for sure...I'm alarmed that anyone would have or want 40 total guns in their possession. I never argued for a certain type of gun to be more regulated or what not.

I've actually been narrowing that number down.  It was over 50 when he died.  I have no real interest in assault weapons (or guns in general) and have been carefully selling them to friends over the past decade.  I'm going to be selling a few more in the coming weeks.

But I grew up in Appalachia.  Guns aren't a big deal.  My 13th birthday present was a 12 gauge shotgun.  That may seem absurd to people with no exposure to them, but guns were always a tool or a hobby for me growing up.  I personally think most people interested in assault weapons are wannabes who have something to prove.  I loathe the idiots we occasionally see on TV walking into Target with their AR-15 slung behind them.  I genuinely care about the comfort of those around me.  As someone who grew up with guns and knows them almost instinctively, if I have a negative opinion about the people who horde them, what do people think who didn't grow up with them?

My dad wasn't a gun nut.  He was a collector.  It was his hobby.  He collected watches and cowboy boots too.  That probably seems weird to a lot of people, but he kept them locked up and rarely if ever used them.  After his breakdown I removed all of his guns from his house, but foolishly returned them a couple months later when his shrink thought he was good to go.  He used one to end his life and that's guilt I have to carry. 

But I'm able to disconnect my emotional thoughts on the subject to recognize private ownership of firearms is a right in this country, and before we limit that right, we better have damn good reason.

mitchejw
 Rep: 129 

Re: US Politics Thread

mitchejw wrote:
Randall Flagg wrote:
mitchejw wrote:

Interesting stuff for sure...I'm alarmed that anyone would have or want 40 total guns in their possession. I never argued for a certain type of gun to be more regulated or what not.

I've actually been narrowing that number down.  It was over 50 when he died.  I have no real interest in assault weapons (or guns in general) and have been carefully selling them to friends over the past decade.  I'm going to be selling a few more in the coming weeks.

But I grew up in Appalachia.  Guns aren't a big deal.  My 13th birthday present was a 12 gauge shotgun.  That may seem absurd to people with no exposure to them, but guns were always a tool or a hobby for me growing up.  I personally think most people interested in assault weapons are wannabes who have something to prove.  I loathe the idiots we occasionally see on TV walking into Target with their AR-15 slung behind them.  I genuinely care about the comfort of those around me.  As someone who grew up with guns and knows them almost instinctively, if I have a negative opinion about the people who horde them, what do people think who didn't grow up with them?

My dad wasn't a gun nut.  He was a collector.  It was his hobby.  He collected watches and cowboy boots too.  That probably seems weird to a lot of people, but he kept them locked up and rarely if ever used them.  After his breakdown I removed all of his guns from his house, but foolishly returned them a couple months later when his shrink thought he was good to go.  He used one to end his life and that's guilt I have to carry. 

But I'm able to disconnect my emotional thoughts on the subject to recognize private ownership of firearms is a right in this country, and before we limit that right, we better have damn good reason.

I'm sorry to hear that about your Father...that's some heavy shit. Responsible gun owners should have the most say in this...to be sure.

And you're right, I don't have much experience with guns and I have very little interest. Personally, I don't care so much when a gang banger shoots another gang banger. Those incidents are highly secluded into a few pockets of the city anyway.

I still think the majority of teachers would prefer not to be responsible for policing their classroom...at least with a gun.

Smoking Guns
 Rep: 330 

Re: US Politics Thread

Smoking Guns wrote:

Should Pam Bondy be our Attorney General for the United States?  She carries herself much better than Sessions.

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB