Recent Shooting and Discussion

notnalc68

notnalc68

That dude from Mississippi
TLife said:
So you would argue that any person should be allowed to own any gun? I'll be the first to admit that I'm woefully ignorant on current gun laws, but I know there's more to it than that.

Let's say that I've been previously convicted of armed robbery and served my jail time. Should I be allowed to legally own a gun?
Click to expand...

That is already illegal, and should prevent the background check from clearing a person, like that.


Sent from my iPhone using WAYALIFE mobile app
 
TrailHunter

TrailHunter

Hooked
Sharkey said:
A hundred or so posts in and people are still fighting about the "how" and avoiding the much harder discussion about the "why". :naw: Ironically, this thread further exemplifies exactly what I was talking about.

I guess I'll bite though. As someone who spends the majority of my days and weeks arguing the rule of law, I am always amazed when people use slippery slope arguments related to the Bill of Rights, or when they speak of the Bill of Rights in terms of absolutes. "The right to keep and bear arms" is no more absolute than the right of free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, or any other "freedom". Government restriction of all of these rights not only exists, it is necessary. The question is simply how much level of restriction are you willing to accept given the social utility of a particular "freedom"?

Even though the Bill of Rights does not define "arms", it seems that most rational Americans would agree that government restriction of private citizen ownership of shoulder fired rockets is ok. I think, or at least hope, that the majority of rational Americans would agree that the danger of having private citizen ownership of explosive rounds or true "armor piercing" rounds outweighs the social utility of possession by those same citizens. In other words, a reasonable society can place reasonable restrictions on "rights" without falling down the slippery slope into the abyss.

(On that point, slippery slope is really just a euphemism for "I'm taking my ball and going home". Each and every one of us makes decisions about what is or is not acceptable all day, every day, without falling down a slippery slope. Rational people, even people of different beliefs, can find reasonable common ground if they are willing to actually listen, discuss, and consider a given topic without resorting to emotion and rhetoric.)
Click to expand...

Always well spoken and on point Sharkey!

Being that you are a lawyer... in your honest opinion, What laws/restrictions could have prevented this tragedy?
 
FallonJeeper

FallonJeeper

New member
The 2nd Amendment is a right. If you understand rights, they are not given by our government. These paragraphs in Constitution and Bill of Rights, simply tell us that we have these rights. As they are God given, they can not be taken away. Of course society through legislation has included some checks and balances, restrictions, limitations.

Some already noted, possesion of a firearm by a felon, or somebody charged/ convicted of domestic violence. There are also age restrictions. Also limited, and usually by state, how you can carry, where you can carry and who may carry.

Know the laws where you live. Too often I hear people chime in about "that's illegal", without actually knowing or understanding the law.

Here's an example. Did you know, in Nevada, it's absolutely legal for an adult, that can legally carry a firearm to openly carry it in plain site? Not only can that adult carry said firearm, they can do so while drinking an alcoholic beverage. Also the blood alcohol level limit for carrying a firearm is .10, where driving is .08.

Know your laws. We have rights, but they sometimes come with restrictions.
 
Last edited:
Samuelh3

Samuelh3

Caught the Bug
Snboarder113 said:
AR-15= armalite rifle model 15. NOT “assault rifle” assault is a verb not a noun. You can assault with a gun with a bat with a fist with a sharpened bar of soap, thanks to dumbass media the term “assault rifle” seems to scare the shit out of everyone. They are extremely effective for home defense, very customizeable (you own a jeep so I assume you understand the pros of this).
I fully believe that there will be no change because the Republicans anytime someone talks about firearms freak the hell out “obama is coming for our guns” and they start hoarding guns and ammo, seen ammo prices lately? Ridiculous. On the other side are people that are not educated even the slightest on firearms that immediately say something stupid and uneducated that makes all firearms owners shut down to any discussion, thereby leaving no room for middle ground.

Now you also see everyone freaking out saying things like other countries with strict gun laws don’t have these problems. Well no. Not exactly they don’t, they do however have bombings and other forms of murder. Hate is hate, regardless of tool. Anyone remember a little while ago an Ariana Grande concert was bombed?
Now onto mental health debates, fine, some things should be in place to make things a bit more thorough for background checks. However, will never fix the problem, it has been proven with studies that many of these mass events are based on getting the attention, the media, the notoriety etc and continue the cycle of copy cats and worse the ones out to one up the previous.

On to my actual point, what’s different now than it used to be? Why do kids think they have no future and so much rage that they idolize the thought of killing innocent(Possibly people that have harmed them in some way vs random people) and committing police-assisted-suicide. They don’t think they have a future, how do you fix that? I think that’s one of the starting points for society as a whole. Instead of just committing suicide they can have all the attention of the world, we’re all actively giving it to him now, Facebook blows up with everyone watching closely, face and name all over the news. Politicians arguing and giving speeches. Step one is call a spade a spade. A person on a killing spree is no different than a person with a pipe bomb, they’re a terrorist and need to be treated as such- regardless of their skin and country of origin.
Step 2 is realize that the media are going to sensationalize the shit out of it because that’s what they do now and have no integrity in reporting, however, report on the victims not the shooter, report on the responders the teachers the heroes. Stop giving them power and fame as it fosters copy cats. View life through Mr. Rogers eyes, find the helpers.

This has never been a problem of what killing tool is used but rather taking steps to limit the occurrences. Admittedly some tools are more effective than others but there will always be a tool.

/rant


Sent from my iPhone using WAYALIFE mobile app
Click to expand...

Damn good point. You want mass shootings to stop? Make the shooter an unknown and praise the hero’s and victims. I can almost guarantee you’ll have less mass shootings.


Sent from my iPhone using WAYALIFE mobile app
 
TLife

TLife

Member
notnalc68 said:
That is already illegal, and should prevent the background check from clearing a person, like that.


Sent from my iPhone using WAYALIFE mobile app
Click to expand...

It seems you may have missed some context. I asked what specific additional restrictions on guns was being debated and the only answer I got was a second amendment quote. Which is obviously not the end all be all of gun regulation.
 
Samuelh3

Samuelh3

Caught the Bug
Sharkey said:
Don’t get me wrong, I totally appreciate your point and there is certain validity to it. Notwithstanding the fact that there are 12 gauge shotguns with 20 and 30 round drums, a 6 round shotgun is probably more deadly at close quarters than an AR. Are the same number of people going to get shot in the same amount of time? Probably not. Is the number of fatalities going to be much different? There is a good chance that it won’t depending on the situation and skill level of the crazy.

My real point is that we need to figure out a way to stop people from wanting to hurt each other. Focusing on the how people kill only causes people to find a different how. Let us not forget France, or 911 for that matter. Prior to Vegas, the deadliest mass killing in Nevada was 7 people. It was from a woman intentionally driving over people. I was a kid and remember it well.
Click to expand...

Hell, prior the Vegas, the largest mass killing was with a truck, 87 people. And prior to that it was a guy with a knife and/or hatchet in China ~50 (can’t recall the details and too lazy to google right now) And that record was held for decades until Nice France.


Sent from my iPhone using WAYALIFE mobile app
 
JAGS

JAGS

Hooked
Sharkey said:
A hundred or so posts in and people are still fighting about the "how" and avoiding the much harder discussion about the "why". :naw: Ironically, this thread further exemplifies exactly what I was talking about.

I guess I'll bite though. As someone who spends the majority of my days and weeks arguing the rule of law, I am always amazed when people use slippery slope arguments related to the Bill of Rights, or when they speak of the Bill of Rights in terms of absolutes. "The right to keep and bear arms" is no more absolute than the right of free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, or any other "freedom". Government restriction of all of these rights not only exists, it is necessary. The question is simply how much level of restriction are you willing to accept given the social utility of a particular "freedom"?

Even though the Bill of Rights does not define "arms", it seems that most rational Americans would agree that government restriction of private citizen ownership of shoulder fired rockets is ok. I think, or at least hope, that the majority of rational Americans would agree that the danger of having private citizen ownership of explosive rounds or true "armor piercing" rounds outweighs the social utility of possession by those same citizens. In other words, a reasonable society can place reasonable restrictions on "rights" without falling down the slippery slope into the abyss.

(On that point, slippery slope is really just a euphemism for "I'm taking my ball and going home". Each and every one of us makes decisions about what is or is not acceptable all day, every day, without falling down a slippery slope. Rational people, even people of different beliefs, can find reasonable common ground if they are willing to actually listen, discuss, and consider a given topic without resorting to emotion and rhetoric.)
Click to expand...

Logic has no place here. +100 post in and scary as fuck.

FallonJeeper said:
The 2nd Amendment is a right. If you understand rights, they are not given by our government. These paragraphs in Constitution and Bill of Rights, simply tell us that we have these rights. As they are God given, they can not be taken away. Of course society through legislation has included some checks and balances, restrictions, limitations.

Some already noted, possesion of a firearm by a felon, or somebody charged/ convicted of domestic violence. There are also age restrictions. Also limited, and usually by state, how you can carry, where you can carry and who may carry.

Know the laws where you live. Too often I hear people chime in about "that's illegal", without actually knowing or understanding the law.

Here's an example. Did you know, in Nevada, it's absolutely legal for an adult, that can legally carry a firearm to openly carry it in plain site? Not only can that adult carry said firearm, they can do so while drinking an alcoholic beverage. Also the blood alcohol level limit for carrying a firearm is .10, where driving is .08.

Know your laws. We have rights, but they sometimes come with restrictions.
Click to expand...

Are you serious?

Some old whites guys in a room centuries ago gave us those rights. I'm pretty sure God was not there.
 
FallonJeeper

FallonJeeper

New member
JAGS said:
So the Bible talks about gun rights? Mind blown. Did not know that. Thanks for the 411. Do you have passage and verse.
Click to expand...
I believe it had to do with self defense.
It's been long arguement.

But the bible also doesn't mention life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness either. But it's mentioned as an unalienable/inalienable right?
 
Last edited:
WJCO

WJCO

Meme King
JAGS said:
So the Bible talks about gun rights? Mind blown. Did not know that. Thanks for the 411. Do you have passage and verse.
Click to expand...

Luke 22:36 Jesus: "He said to them, "....and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." "

Declaration of Independence: "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"

;)
 
Sharkey

Sharkey

Word Ninja
TrailHunter said:
Being that you are a lawyer... in your honest opinion, What laws/restrictions could have prevented this tragedy?
Click to expand...

Honestly, with this particular situation, I'm not certain laws/restrictions would have prevented the tragedy. It seems as though this individual might have just found a different way to do the same thing. Crazy will always find a way to be crazy and most people with any real firearm/explosive/firefighting experience will tell you that there are several more efficient ways to kill people in a closed setting like a building than an AR.

But, in my opinion, that doesn't mean our country shouldn't be reevaluating some of our gun laws, our mental health laws, etc. The failure here was institutional (and by that "institution" I mean with our entire society). It's hard to fix that type of failure with any one law. Again, you may take away the "how" from one person and I understand the desire to do that, but if we want real change we have to find a way to address the "why".
 
Ddays

Ddays

Hooked
We have allowed ourselves to be herded into groups. Liberal, Republican, Conservative, Democrat, Independent, Libertarian, Pro-life, Pro-death penalty, etc, etc, etc. We no longer want to reason with each other or listen to the "opposition's" position because it's "not what I believe in", even if there are beliefs that may be shared. We have become intellectually lazy and it is only getting worse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom