JCauto

18 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

It doesnt really make much difference , you are still depriving a living being of a life , whether you do that after 9 weeks , 20 weeks or 30 weeks, doesn't really make much difference . To are just ending that life a few weeks earlier

There was a great analogy I read the other day that clarifies things in this endless and fruitless debate. It's a variation on the "Trolley Problem".

You're in a house that has caught on fire. The house is a Center for Reproductive Health. You wake up in a panic and rush to get out. On your way out, you quickly open a door because you hear someone screaming in terror and inside there are two chairs. One has a child of 1 year old on it. The other has a big container with 1,000 in-vitro fertilization eggs that have already been impregnated with sperm and the cooling systems to maintain them. You can only carry one and what is left will burn. What do you do?

22 hours ago, happy me said:

Well this really is a load of <deleted>! Extremely poor judgement!

Sorry Khunying? You may have to dip into the petty cash to pay off this minor inconvenience. How much was scammed, just give us the number of zeros, no need for too much detail.

2 hours ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Hmmm, you want to make a point by comparing guns to alcohol? 

 

(Now I assume that since I once again directly  addressed one of your points of logic.......... just like I did before......... you'll accused me once again of "deflecting." ???????????? Come on, now......... go for it! )

 

 

Once again, on schedule and off point. You're a boring troll.

"My point, which you I'm sure fully understood, was that if the shooter in this specific case had to go through the 17 steps of the driver's license process, with multiple people who were trained in "red flag" signs such as the shooting instructor, they would have likely been identified as a risk and then they would not have gotten a gun."

Now, you'll no doubt go off an another dull attempt at trolling by saying "hmmm, you want to make a point by comparing guns to driving." Go on, you can't resist, and you have a pathological need to get the last word in. Tell you what, if you actually post something germane and sensible I'll let you have it and you can triumphantly raise your beer among your miserable mates and receive the plaudits. Because no doubt you're about 4 beers in at this point of the day.

15 hours ago, habanero said:

As a Texas resident myself, your comparison is mute. Do you not know the difference between a class C license and a class A or B?

Oh, are you making a point of some sort? Because if you are, perhaps you might explain it so that we can understand. Is there a way in Texas to get a driver's license without testing or identification or something? 

Or are you just trying to get in the "last word" so you can declare victory with your drinking mates and can regale them about how you "owned the libs" again on gun control?

15 hours ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Are you familiar with the phrase "Locks are for honest people?" 

 

If someone has decided that what they really want to do is shoot up an elementary school........ he'll want to do that before he buys the guns.............. and he'll still want to do that after getting his license and going through the training. 

 

Because all the training is going to focus on is how to not shoot someone accidentally.......... yourself included.

 

As far as I can see, training won't stop anyone who is determined to be a shooter. It'll just make them better at it! 

 

Is there a logic to having people whose intention is to be safe anyway.......... get licenses and training that helps them be safe anyway? Sure, I guess so. 

 

But that doesn't even remotely address the problem we're talking about........... does it? 

Oh wow! More deflection! I'm shocked!

My point, which you I'm sure fully understood, was that if the shooter in this specific case had to go through the 17 steps of the driver's license process, with multiple people who were trained in "red flag" signs such as the shooting instructor, they would have likely been identified as a risk and then they would not have gotten a gun. If the age for being able to purchase a gun was raised to 21 (you know, like the drinking age because apparently 18yo are too immature to drink, but they ARE mature enough to handle a war weapon), then they would not have been able to get one without breaking the law and being at further risk of being identified and arrested prior to the opportunity to shoot up a school. If they had to wait 3 years to enact their nefarious plan, odds are they'd have an incident with the law that would put at risk their ability to purchase a firearm legally. 

So yes, that DOES start to address the problem.

1 hour ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Arizona......... as long as you meet the prerequisite. 

 

In Arizona, because I had a valid New Jersey driver's license, I did not have to take any tests---written or driving---to get my Arizona license. I just filled out the forms and paid the fees. 

 

Had to do a driving test in Washington, California and New Jersey, though. And I seem to recall a driving test being required over a certain age in Arizona, even if you have an existing license. I may be wrong about this, though. 

 

Cheers! 

 

 

In other words, YES, you have to do a driving test, and having done three in the past, that was accepted as valid. While I'd enjoy a trip to Arizona (with my golf clubs), it's not going to work because of this.

I would be interested though in your actual response to the question I posed. Why wouldn't you have a similar licensing process for guns as you do for driving? As a trained driver, and trained gun user, why would you want people wandering around without any gun training or licensing?

18 hours ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Don't you realize that the training done in the military primarily exists for two reasons............

 

1) To improve a person's ability to kill; and

 

2) To limit the chances they will kill the wrong people, accidentally.

 

See, that military training you seem to believe is important enough to mention........... exists almost exclusively for the purpose of increasing the efficiency of armed personnel. It exists to teach them how to kill efficiently and properly. 

 

---------------

 

If an 18-year old wants to buy guns with the aim of shooting up an elementary school............... what sort of mandatory training  do you think is going to talk him out of that? 

 

Certainly not military training. Military training would just teach him how to be better at it! 

 

????????????

 

Cheers! 

In order to join the military, you have to not be disqualified. In order to not be disqualified, you have to be tested, interviewed and have your record examined, and if any of these things is the case, you will be disqualified:

Bad credit or a lot of debt;

Citizenship or Legal Permanent Residence status;

High School graduate or equivalent;

Dependency/History of drug or alcohol dependency;

Criminal history including ANY domestic violence misdemeanor, felony conviction as an adult, felony conviction involving violence as a juvenile, sex crimes or sale of illegal drugs;

Specific medical condition (including mental health issues).

So, what I want is for anyone buying a gun to have similar sort of scrutiny first, then be properly trained where someone with a lot of experience can both teach them how to properly operate and maintain the weapon but also interact up close and personal with the trainee to provide another level of assurance that there wasn't something missed in the original vetting process. Obviously it's not foolproof, but it's a way you can at least cut out a lot of the obvious red flag cases. Would this kid have been able to get through a session with an experienced instructor without him detecting red flags (especially if they are trained to do so)? I am guessing not, but of course it's possible he could have. You can't have a 100% success rate, but even a 25% success rate would mean reducing the killing by a significant amount.

Now why is it that the military insists on this as policy? Why would you want there to be zero scrutiny before someone buys a weapon capable of similar efficiency in killing people and no oversight or training or other requirements of said person? 

On 6/6/2022 at 8:05 PM, habanero said:

All I stated is that a purchased a new rifle. Look at what you have thus interpreted. You must be a fan of the "View".  I mentioned nothing about an 18 yo. purchasing a gun. Also, mentioned nothing about high capacity magazines. Thou, I must admit. I don't believe in licensing. Would you be in favor of licensing so that you can exercise your 1st amendment rights? Or would the 4th amendment not apply to you because you failed to purchase a 4th amendment license? For your information, I have never purchased a firearm and I have purchased many. Without having to go through a background check. That even includes buying just a lower receiver for an M4 carbine.  Again, I think you listen to the ladies of the View too much.

Typical deflection and misdirection - disingenuousness is your calling card. This entire discussion is about allowing civilians to purchase these weapons without restriction and the context is the 18yo who went out on his birthday, bought one and shot up an Elementary School. Remember? Oh yeah!

And even still your response is "I don't believe in licensing", and then go off on a nonsensical argument about different constitutional amendments. Do you think it is the same thing to license people to use a weapon that can kill dozens in a few minutes versus having a license to speak? Of course you don't, you're just throwing stuff at the wall in the hope you don't have to make a logical argument, something you are basically incapable of. I will be charitable and assume there was a typo in your sentence "FYI, I have never purchased a firearm and I have purchased many" which makes no sense. I have never watched an episode of "the View" - I don't watch television at all.

So now that we've wasted time on your nonsensical non-sequitur, let's get back to the question I asked you. You state that you served time in a combat zone, meaning you were a highly trained soldier who had to regularly undertake refresher training in the use of guns and requalify, store the weapons in authorized and secure locations, learn about proper use, fire discipline, etc. With this knowledge, how do you justify providing similar weapons to kids with no training and no requirement to safely store the weapons? Do you think it was a waste of time to train you, and all that was needed was to slap on some camo gear and send you into war? Why do you need training when this kid does not?

18 hours ago, habanero said:

I have served more than enough time in a combat zone. I have nothing to prove.

 

And you have learned nothing from the experience then. If you served, you've seen the horrible damage these weapons can inflict on those shot, you've understood that you only could even serve with those weapons if you were passed initial, regular and update training every single year you served. If you demonstrated poor fire discipline, equipment maintenance or insubordination, you were punished for it. You were continually monitored by your superior officers. You could not take the weapons off base or off duty.

Yet you're totally cool with giving 18yo a right to go buy a semi-auto with similar killing power along with a high capacity magazine without any background check, any training, any obligation to ensure that they're a safe gun user, any licensing, any wait period, any oversight, any storage. No restrictions, let's just give them to everyone who wants one and wonder why all the carnage takes place? How do you justify that position from a logical point of view?

3 hours ago, coolcarer said:

Did you misunderstand my post and who I was responding to? The poster I was responding to brought up video games banning, I was making it clear to him that this was just another of his deflections on the real issues of stricter gun control. Got it now?

Yes, sorry about that. One might think that a post fully supporting the points you made might engender more politesse, but I understand your frustration in dealing with the gun-nuts and their relentless attempts to obfuscate, change the topic, raise completely unrelated points and otherwise justify their love of shooting guns despite the death that it comes along with. So long as it's not their death or someone they love, who GAF? I like to shoot guns, let them die! Freedumb!

14 hours ago, coolcarer said:

Again ignoring the facts and evidence already posted in this thread. Banning some guns is the first step, far stricter controls on others is the next. Those are evidence based facts and outcomes that work. Video games is another deflection on what needs to be done first.

There has never been any evidence that video games have had any impact on pre-disposing children or teenagers to violence. In fact, the latest study has shown that it is quite good for the development of children's brains.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2019.00134/full#:~:text=A recent interventional study found,rapid improvements in brain development.

But surely there have been studies of correlation between videogames and violence specifically you say? Yes, there was, and no there isn't!

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.200373

Interestingly, it seems that 65% of videogamers continue to play as adults. That's 2 out of 3! 

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2022/05/preventing-mass-shootings-myths-mental-illness-warning-signs-red-flags-uvalde/?fbclid=IwAR0_6L-mo8IBAPrsxXCSQPM9IOX9gsOVOai1idMKrFUNSh5kKyDgkcuGNeU

This article (yes, I know, Mother Jones) is actually one of the most sensible things I've read, because it actually identifies a number of common characteristics of these mass shooters. It notes that these are never impulsive acts that come from nowhere, but carefully planned decisions by angry young men who have and engage in:

1. Entrenched grievances.

2. Threatening communications.

3. Patterns of aggression (domestic violence for e.g.).

4. Stalking behaviour.

5. Emulation (identification with past attackers).

6. Personal deterioration.

7. Triggering events.

8. Attack preparation. 

Many of these were common for the guy in Uvalde, the guy in Buffalo and the guy in Michigan (Oxford High). This is why gun control advocates are pushing for "Red Flag" laws.

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

Yes, the left loves the little school kids that get shot, and they want to do all they can to stop the killings, but they never get from the wanting to do something, to outlining exactly what it is they want to do. They play the same tire chin-music after every shooting, but never do anything. 

 

As much as the left cares about the kids (at least the ones they can't stop from being born) getting shot, it is interesting that the left does not seem to give a whit about the tens of thousands of young black men killed each year with hand-guns.

 

 

Your predictable "whataboutism" and deflection is trite.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0002961022002057

The ban on assault weapons worked. It should be reinstituted. Your attempts to hijack and divert the argument are pathetic.

On 5/28/2022 at 10:13 PM, Atlantis said:

Whatever toxic echo-chamber you get your news from, I suggest you break out of it pronto.

Find one, just one right?

“Armed female bystander kills man firing at party in West Virginia”

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61615236

 

Try the left-leaning BBC for an example. Try and find it on MSNBC, CNN, ABC News. Is it even on Foxnews main page yet? Wasn’t to be found a few hours ago.

 

Save your apology, just learn to control yourself.

Apologize for what? Your lack of reading comprehension? My point was that the media WOULD broadcast any incident of a "good guy (or gal) with a gun" and the point of the liar KhunLA was a complete fabrication that was the exact opposite of the truth. I challenged him to find a single incident where this hadn't been reported by the media. 

1 hour ago, Atlantis said:

Whoops. This is slightly inconvenient for many: a female by-stander with a legal firearm just prevented another mass shooting:

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-61615236
 

Yeah, a mass shooting... with a ducking BB gun. THIS is much closer to what the founding fathers intended by several quantum levels than your stupid AR-15. I'm fully in favor of Americans carrying muzzle loaded muskets or BB guns around, have at it! 

2 minutes ago, PoodThaiMaiDai said:

Apologies for not digging too deep in the breakdown our discussion and differences of opinions.  I am busy with some personal stuff right now.

 

Here is the LINK for the 10%.

 

The 4% is for the agency I was discussing is an internal document I don't access too anymore.

Understood - I have time to do so because I'm working and so this offers a chance at glorious glorious procrastination before I have to do something I dislike. I need to do something about that tendency towards procrastination, think I'll start tomorrow.

Thanks for sending the link - I think you also understand that this is a personal opinion of the writer of the blog who does not link to the source for his contention. So not really something we could use to further the discussion and understanding. I do appreciate that you're engaging in civil discourse.