Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

School attack in Canadaland.Follow

#102 Mar 07 2016 at 12:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Personally, I think we should be focusing on putting controls on handguns rather than AR's ( or really, different controls)

I get it, thin edge of the wedge; but I'm a pragmatist at heart.
You have to do it in a way that stimulates the economy. Banning handguns is a no-win thing; you're just taking away jobs from hard working people.

Now if you mandated that every person had to wear a bullet-proof vest at all times while out in public, then you'd be onto something. We'd have to manufacture lots of vests. Kids would need new ones every year or two. The government could buy a bunch to hand out to poor people so the welfare lovers don't feel left out. All sorts of good would come from it.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#103 Mar 07 2016 at 12:51 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Bernie? That you?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#104 Mar 07 2016 at 3:52 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Personally, I think we should be focusing on putting controls on handguns rather than AR's ( or really, different controls)

I get it, thin edge of the wedge; but I'm a pragmatist at heart.
You have to do it in a way that stimulates the economy. Banning handguns is a no-win thing; you're just taking away jobs from hard working people.

Now if you mandated that every person had to wear a bullet-proof vest at all times while out in public, then you'd be onto something. We'd have to manufacture lots of vests. Kids would need new ones every year or two. The government could buy a bunch to hand out to poor people so the welfare lovers don't feel left out. All sorts of good would come from it.


I've got 1 word for you; Monorail SmartGuns.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#105 Mar 08 2016 at 8:51 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
I'm waiting for advancements in those Judge Dredd guns that are being worked on. Smiley: inlove
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#106 Mar 08 2016 at 9:41 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
I think Cams & biometric safety, and stat reporting would be added value to police and target shooters handguns, and once you brought the price down you can bring everyone else along for the ride.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#107 Mar 08 2016 at 11:07 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
I'd like it if people that shouldn't have weapons not get weapons and people not freaking out about tyranny. I'd also like licensing and insurance. Something similar to the Dangerous Instrumentality Doctrine in Florida.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#108 Mar 08 2016 at 3:59 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Personally, I think we should be focusing on putting controls on handguns rather than AR's ( or really, different controls)


The problem is that this can't even remotely pass constitutional muster. The entire argument against "assault weapons" is that they are not "needed" for things like hunting or personal defense. You can't make even that argument against handguns, since they are quite obviously the most effective weapon for personal defense. Problem is that the same features that make handguns great for personal defense also make them great for doing things like committing robberies and murders.

Which is precisely why the focus is on scary looking military style rifles. It's not about actually doing anything about gun deaths, but doing "something", that you might actually be able to get passed, and that you can point to and say "Look at us working to make you all safer!". It's a classic case of perception vs reality. But in politics, perception often does trump reality, so that's the low hanging fruit of the issue. So instead of looking at the crimes committed with firearms and trying to find ways to reduce the rate of those crimes, they spend all their time focusing on a very small percentage of crimes and a very small percentage of the firearms, and pat themselves on the back every time they manage to pass some new regulation on those weapons. Never mind that it has no actual effect on total firearm deaths in the country.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#109 Mar 08 2016 at 4:01 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
I think Cams & biometric safety, and stat reporting would be added value to police and target shooters handguns, and once you brought the price down you can bring everyone else along for the ride.


How would that help? You don't honestly think that someone planning to commit murder with his firearm is going to attach such a device to it (or balk at violating the law by disabling it on the off chance you could *ever* mandate something like this). What problem are you actually trying to solve with this?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#110 Mar 08 2016 at 11:40 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
gbaji wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
I think Cams & biometric safety, and stat reporting would be added value to police and target shooters handguns, and once you brought the price down you can bring everyone else along for the ride.


How would that help? You don't honestly think that someone planning to commit murder with his firearm is going to attach such a device to it (or balk at violating the law by disabling it on the off chance you could *ever* mandate something like this). What problem are you actually trying to solve with this?


Eventually, they'd come as a standard safety feature, like gun safeties. seat belts and backup cameras.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#111 Mar 09 2016 at 9:05 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
The problem is that this can't even remotely pass constitutional muster.
You mean "special interest muster." Nowhere in the constitution does it say you can't mandate safety features like mandatory biometric locks onto firearms.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#112 Mar 09 2016 at 9:18 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'd like a backup camera on my gun.

Edit: Ooohh! What they should do is make guns emit a loud "BEEP BEEP" noise whenever its out of its holster/case, like a truck backing up.

Edited, Mar 9th 2016 9:26am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#113 Mar 09 2016 at 11:05 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
The Martian Conspiracy wrote:
Kyle Odom, the former Marine suspected of shooting Idaho pastor Tim Remington on Sunday, was arrested Tuesday evening outside the White House, according to Coeur d’Alene police and the Secret Service.

The Secret Service said in a statement that Odom “threw unknown material over the south fence line at the White House Complex.”

He was immediately taken into custody.

Hours earlier, someone posted a message to Odom’s Facebook page claiming Remington was shot because the pastor was “from Mars” and had “ruined” Odom’s life, according to Washington television station KXLY.

Odom’s Facebook profile picture also was changed to a drawing of an alien.

Police in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, where the shooting took place, said Monday that Odom had a history of mental illness.

Remington was shot several times in the head and back after delivering his Sunday sermon at the Altar Church.

The shooting gained national attention, in part because Remington had prayed with Republican presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas at a campaign rally in Coeur d’Alene on Saturday.

Coeur d’Alene Police Chief Lee White said that a person thought to be Odom had sent a “rambling” manifesto to media outlets.

A copy of the manifesto, posted online by television station KHQ, shows that a section of it was addressed to President Obama. In it, Odom asks Obama to resist the aliens, writing: “It’s time someone took a stand to end this nonsense.”

Another section, titled “noteworthy Martians,” lists 50 members of Congress — including members of both parties — and dozens of Israeli officials.

The manifesto also makes threats against a second Altar Church pastor, who was placed under police protection, according to White.

“What he wrote definitely played a part in raising our awareness and concern,” White said of the manifesto.

The police chief added that he thought the Facebook post was genuine, as it was “consistent with other information we have received.”

White also read a statement from Odom’s family members, who said they were completely unaware of Odom’s plans and asked for privacy.

“We are truly thankful to God he is safe and no one else has been injured,” the family said in the statement.

According to KXLY, the following message was posted to Odom’s Facebook page on Tuesday:

“Things are not what they appear to be. The world is ruled by ancient civilization from Mars. Pastor Tim was one of them, and he was the reason my life was ruined. I will be sharing my story with as many people as possible. I don’t have time right now, they are chasing me. I shot Pastor Tim 12 times, there is no way any human could have survived that event. Anyway, I have sent my story to all the major news organizations. I have no time, I have to go.”

The Secret Service released the following statement Tuesday night:
Secret Service wrote:
On March 8, 2016 at approximately 8:30 pm, an individual, later identified as Kyle A. Odom, threw unknown material over the south fence line at the White House Complex. Odom was immediately taken into custody by U.S. Secret Service, Uniformed Officers. The material thrown by Odom was determined to be non-hazardous.

As per standard procedures, Odom was queried through law enforcement databases. As a result, an outstanding warrant for attempted murder-first degree, filed by the Coeur d’Alene Police Department, Idaho for Odom’s arrest was discovered. Odom was arrested on the outstanding warrant, and he was transported to the Metropolitan Police Department for processing.

The U.S. Secret Service, through its Washington Field Office and Spokane Resident Office, is coordinating with the Coeur d’Alene Police Department.
Remington is in stable condition despite being shot as many as six times, his son told local television station KREM.

John Padula, the second Altar Church pastor threatened in Odom’s letter, said Remington regained consciousness Monday.

“He’s whispering and talking to his family a little bit,” Padula told the Associated Press. “He’s doing absolutely amazing. He gave me a thumbs-up last night when I went in.”
Some more on the story. If only that poor Martian Padre, or at least someone in his intergalactic congregation, was armed with a disintegration ray, amirite?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#114 Mar 09 2016 at 12:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I'd like a backup camera on my gun.

Edit: Ooohh! What they should do is make guns emit a loud "BEEP BEEP" noise whenever its out of its holster/case, like a truck backing up.

Edited, Mar 9th 2016 9:26am by Jophiel


Do you think a gun which played "Let the bodies hit the floor" whenever it was removed from its holster would lead to a higher gun death rate? How about a loud annoying siren? Would the owner of the gun be more likely to be shot in the siren case?

These are questions that need answering, but I am told I cannot conduct this study for reasons I assume to be really lame.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#115 Mar 09 2016 at 12:17 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Do you think a gun which played "Let the bodies hit the floor" whenever it was removed from its holster would lead to a higher gun death rate?
I know I'd shoot myself if that song played every time.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#116 Mar 09 2016 at 6:43 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,659 posts
The one thing I've always thought would put a significant dent in gun crime, and garner broad bipartisan support, is enacting stronger measures to deter or punish straw purchases.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#117 Mar 09 2016 at 8:18 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
I think Cams & biometric safety, and stat reporting would be added value to police and target shooters handguns, and once you brought the price down you can bring everyone else along for the ride.


How would that help? You don't honestly think that someone planning to commit murder with his firearm is going to attach such a device to it (or balk at violating the law by disabling it on the off chance you could *ever* mandate something like this). What problem are you actually trying to solve with this?


Eventually, they'd come as a standard safety feature, like gun safeties. seat belts and backup cameras.


How is a camera on a gun a "safety feature"? If it's not possible to disable it, then it's just a 4th amendment violation (and probably 2nd amendment as well since the clear intent of such a thing would be to discourage gun ownership). And people have been talking about biometric "safeties" on guns for decades. No one has yet come up with one that works well enough to even be remotely considered. The problem is that when someone needs to use a firearm, they *need* to use it. There can't even be the slightest chance that a glitch in the system prevents them from firing. Manufacturers are not responsible for a firearm that operates properly and results in someone dying. They *are* directly liable for a firearm that operates improperly and results in someone dying. No one's remotely close to putting something like this on a firearm.

These are options people can put on their guns if they want. But, as I asked above. How does this in any way affect gun crime? A criminal is not going to install and use these features. And good luck mandating them.

Edited, Mar 9th 2016 6:19pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#118 Mar 09 2016 at 8:27 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Sigh. Posting the actual thing I was responding to, since you seem to have missed it the first time.

gbaji wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
Personally, I think we should be focusing on putting controls on handguns rather than AR's ( or really, different controls)


The problem is that this can't even remotely pass constitutional muster. The entire argument against "assault weapons" is that they are not "needed" for things like hunting or personal defense. You can't make even that argument against handguns, since they are quite obviously the most effective weapon for personal defense. Problem is that the same features that make handguns great for personal defense also make them great for doing things like committing robberies and murders.


lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The problem is that this can't even remotely pass constitutional muster.
You mean "special interest muster." Nowhere in the constitution does it say you can't mandate safety features like mandatory biometric locks onto firearms.



We weren't talking about biometric locks. We were talking about "controls on handguns rather than AR's", which I assumed to be about regulations and/or "bans" in general since that's what we were talking about with regard to "assault weapons". The talk about biometric locks came later.

Um... But I'll point out (again) that mandated biometric locks, while potentially viable, are still a really really really tough thing to get past the 2nd amendment. The locks would have to work perfectly, never fail to allow the legitimate user to fire, and allow for a list of user to be keyed to it (so anyone in the household could use it to defend the home, for example). And be absolutely guaranteed to only be controllable by the user (no law enforcement back doors). Anything less than that constitutes a restriction on the right of the person to keep and bear arms. If I'm not in complete control of when and whether my firearm can fire, then that right is gone.

Edited, Mar 9th 2016 6:29pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#119 Mar 09 2016 at 8:30 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,601 posts
This all makes me really glad we don't have a 2nd amendment.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#120 Mar 09 2016 at 8:49 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
Anything less than that constitutes a restriction on the right of the person to keep and bear arms.
Just the fact that the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act exists, and the myriad of people that flat out can't legally bear arms at all proves your opinion wrong. "Discouraging" something isn't the same as "preventing" it.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#121 Mar 09 2016 at 9:12 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Anything less than that constitutes a restriction on the right of the person to keep and bear arms.
Just the fact that the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act exists, and the myriad of people that flat out can't legally bear arms at all proves your opinion wrong. "Discouraging" something isn't the same as "preventing" it.


You're under the mistaken belief that rights are absolute. All rights can be infringed, but such infringement must only occur when the exercise of said right infringes a greater right of someone else. Thus, we can pass a law saying that I'm not allowed to fire my weapon in a way that harms another except under extremely limited circumstances, and we have not actually eliminated my "right to keep and bear arms". My right has just been outweighed by someone else's right to not get shot unless they are themselves engaged in some rights infringing activity which justifies it.

You're basically arguing for the slippery slope when you say "since we already have this law, then there's no reason not to pass others". That's not a legitimate form of argument IMO. You have to justify each additional piece of regulation on its own merits. Again. No one has said that firearm ownership or use cannot be regulated at all. But you have to show that the proposed regulation will minimally impact the rights of gun owners and actually have any sort of effect at all on gun related criminal activity. Most proposed laws just don't meet this criteria because at the end of the day, most people fighting for gun control laws actively want to simply minimize the number of guns that exist and the number of people who own them. Period. So they actively tend to go for laws that maximize the infringement of the rights of gun owners, while often not actually doing much or anything about whatever thing they claim they're trying to prevent/reduce/whatever.

Gun crime/violence/whatever is the excuse to obtain the desired goal. As I pointed out earlier, if they really wanted to reduce the number of mass shooting events and the number of people killed when they do occur, the vast majority of data supports that they should remove restrictions on concealed carry. But instead they do the opposite. It's almost as if they actively want more mass shootings so that they get more scary stories in the news and more dead children, so that they can pursue their holy objective of ridding the country of those evil guns. Oh wait. That would be crazy talk, right?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#122 Mar 09 2016 at 9:24 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Demea wrote:
The one thing I've always thought would put a significant dent in gun crime, and garner broad bipartisan support, is enacting stronger measures to deter or punish straw purchases.


Yeah. That would work wonders. That and actually pursue, investigate, and prosecute violators. The problem is that it really seems as though the gun control folks just want to harass and bother law abiding gun owners instead. And when someone does propose this sort of regulation, someone on the Left inevitably slips in some kind of poison pill that would make it harder for regular buyers and sellers to be able to conduct business, ensuring that the needed changes never occur, so that they can continue to lament the lack of a solution.

It ought to be possible to noodle out who's buying 100s of guns at a time and selling them illegally, track them down and catch them violating existing laws regarding gun sales. The problem is that they don't spent much effort doing this, and instead just complain about one gun at a time being sold by private parties at gun shows (which is *not* the problem). Gang bangers aren't going to gun shows and buying used or antique guns there. They're buying them from the trunk of the car of a guy who purchased them in bulk from some otherwise legal licensed gun retailer.

Straw selling has been a federal crime for nearly 50 years. The real issue is enforcement. Sadly, most of the focus is on getting guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, and even more sadly, increased gun fatality figures help them do that (just look at how the stats are pulled out every time the argument comes up), so there's little incentive to actually enact changes or actively pursue actions that might actually do some good.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#123 Mar 09 2016 at 10:16 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
Thus, we can pass a law saying that I'm not allowed to fire my weapon in a way that harms another except under extremely limited circumstances, and we have not actually eliminated my "right to keep and bear arms"
gbaji wrote:
If I'm not in complete control of when and whether my firearm can fire, then that right is gone.
FOPA is where you're not in full control of when and whether your firearm can fire. You're insisting that somehow something that was found constitutional, and is in practice as we speak, is unconstitutional and can't be done.
gbaji wrote:
No one has said that firearm ownership or use cannot be regulated at all.
You literally said locks and legislation that prevents you from firing your weapon whenever you felt like is unconstitutional. You are stating in absolutes how these cannot exist, yet they do.

Along with FOPA, there's also New York's A8293 bill, which requires the safe storage of all guns not in the immediate possession or control of the owner, either in a safe or a locking device of some sort. Again, just the very existence of these proves that they are constitutional.
gbaji wrote:
You're basically arguing for the slippery slope when you say "since we already have this law, then there's no reason not to pass others".
You argued that something that does exist somehow can't; Basically you said apples can't exist. I pointed out that it does exist. Your reasoning is 100% faulty. The resistance to these measures have nothing to do with the constitution, but of special interest groups. Full stop. It's not the constitution that says we can't do these things, it's the zealot fringe edge of the NRA.

And let's be honest, "if it isn't perfect out the gate then we should never do it" is a far, far worse argument.
gbaji wrote:
As I pointed out earlier
Then go ahead and reread what was said.

Edited, Mar 9th 2016 11:19pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#124 Mar 10 2016 at 10:04 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
gbaji wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
I think Cams & biometric safety, and stat reporting would be added value to police and target shooters handguns, and once you brought the price down you can bring everyone else along for the ride.


How would that help? You don't honestly think that someone planning to commit murder with his firearm is going to attach such a device to it (or balk at violating the law by disabling it on the off chance you could *ever* mandate something like this). What problem are you actually trying to solve with this?


Eventually, they'd come as a standard safety feature, like gun safeties. seat belts and backup cameras.


How is a camera on a gun a "safety feature"? If it's not possible to disable it, then it's just a 4th amendment violation (and probably 2nd amendment as well since the clear intent of such a thing would be to discourage gun ownership). And people have been talking about biometric "safeties" on guns for decades. No one has yet come up with one that works well enough to even be remotely considered. The problem is that when someone needs to use a firearm, they *need* to use it. There can't even be the slightest chance that a glitch in the system prevents them from firing. Manufacturers are not responsible for a firearm that operates properly and results in someone dying. They *are* directly liable for a firearm that operates improperly and results in someone dying. No one's remotely close to putting something like this on a firearm.

These are options people can put on their guns if they want. But, as I asked above. How does this in any way affect gun crime? A criminal is not going to install and use these features. And good luck mandating them.

Edited, Mar 9th 2016 6:19pm by gbaji


If you purchase a gun for home protection and have video evidence that you legally shot someone, you'd likely be able to abridge or avoid the trial process.

If you lost the shootout there would be evidence to who the intruder was so they could be pursued.

Criminals would be unlikely to want to break in and steal this gun.

Edited, Mar 10th 2016 11:07am by Timelordwho
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#125 Mar 10 2016 at 10:12 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
Quote:
The problem is that this can't even remotely pass constitutional muster. The entire argument against "assault weapons" is that they are not "needed" for things like hunting or personal defense. You can't make even that argument against handguns, since they are quite obviously the most effective weapon for personal defense. Problem is that the same features that make handguns great for personal defense also make them great for doing things like committing robberies and murders.


You don't have to ban guns; if you create a mandate which makes the default option harder to be used to commit crimes, you reduce risk. Heck, you don't even have to make it mandatory on the consumer side, just the seller side. That and eliminating unregulated firearm transfers would help a great deal.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#126 Mar 10 2016 at 12:18 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
I thought the cameras were so the shooters would stop to take selfies.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 285 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (285)