At least 4 dead, multiple people injured in shooting at Tulsa, Oklahoma, medical building: Police

[Phoenix Rising]

2 hours ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Beforehand, I assumed your problem was a lack of comprehension: You simply didn't understand that back then, the word "regulated" meant something very different. 

 

So, giving you the benefit of the doubt, I went to the trouble to explain. 

 

Now it appears your problem is simply your inability to learn. 

 

Sorry, my mistake. In the future, I'll try harder not to overestimate you. 

 

Cheers! 

Meanwhile, in the real world.....

 

Half of Republicans support stricter gun laws, a double-digit jump in a year, USA TODAY/Ipsos poll says

[Scott]

Inflammatory post removed.  Keep it civil, please.

[metisdead]

A post using a trolling music video has been removed.

[habanero]

5 hours ago, JCauto said:

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?

You're trying to compare a civilian purchasing a firearm to a person in the military. Not at all the same thing. One is controlled by an arm of the government and the other is thankfully not. 

 Not much difference than someone needing a commercial drivers license (CDL) to drive an oversized vehicle or bus on the highway and a civilian buying a Class A motorhome and not needing anything but a regular drivers license to drive on the nations highways.  Commercial drivers go through a school to learn to drive a truck or bus. They will be given a driving test by the Dept. of Transportation, authorized examiner. A government entity.

But a civilian is free to go about their business without any formal training or driving test . Which driver do you think has a better chance of getting into an accident and killing someone?

 I know you are going to say, Oh! but it's not the same. Well, yes it is.

One is government controlled and one is not. But, both need to take responsibility for their actions. 

 

Edited June 8, 2022 by habanero

[James105]

14 hours ago, habanero said:

You're trying to compare a civilian purchasing a firearm to a person in the military. Not at all the same thing. One is controlled by an arm of the government and the other is thankfully not. 

 Not much difference than someone needing a commercial drivers license (CDL) to drive an oversized vehicle or bus on the highway and a civilian buying a Class A motorhome and not needing anything but a regular drivers license to drive on the nations highways.  Commercial drivers go through a school to learn to drive a truck or bus. They will be given a driving test by the Dept. of Transportation, authorized examiner. A government entity.

But a civilian is free to go about their business without any formal training or driving test . Which driver do you think has a better chance of getting into an accident and killing someone?

 I know you are going to say, Oh! but it's not the same. Well, yes it is.

One is government controlled and one is not. But, both need to take responsibility for their actions. 

 

You are trying to compare a vehicle with a gun.  Not at all the same thing, which you will come to understand if you try and answer the following 2 simple questions:

 

1.  How many Class A Motorhomes have been used to massacre little kids in their classrooms?  

2. Is the main purpose of a Class A motorhome to kill people or provide a "home on wheels"?   

 

 

[JCauto]

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? 

 

[JCauto]

15 hours ago, habanero said:

You're trying to compare a civilian purchasing a firearm to a person in the military. Not at all the same thing. One is controlled by an arm of the government and the other is thankfully not. 

 Not much difference than someone needing a commercial drivers license (CDL) to drive an oversized vehicle or bus on the highway and a civilian buying a Class A motorhome and not needing anything but a regular drivers license to drive on the nations highways.  Commercial drivers go through a school to learn to drive a truck or bus. They will be given a driving test by the Dept. of Transportation, authorized examiner. A government entity.

But a civilian is free to go about their business without any formal training or driving test . Which driver do you think has a better chance of getting into an accident and killing someone?

 I know you are going to say, Oh! but it's not the same. Well, yes it is.

One is government controlled and one is not. But, both need to take responsibility for their actions. 

 

At least you're consistent in your disingenuousness. Great comparison by the way if illustrating my point was your objective (even though it was not). 

First of all, are there REALLY places where you can get a driver's license without a driving test? Please let me know where, so I can get my wife to go and get one as she's failed at hers twice already. But I think you know that there isn't. Here's how to get one in Texas - https://www.dps.texas.gov/section/driver-license/how-apply-texas-driver-license

 

1. US Citizenship or evidence of lawful presence;

2. Texas residency;

3. ID;

4. SSN;

5. Texas vehicle registration for each vehicle you own;

6. Proof of insurance for each vehicle you own;

7. Evidence of completion of Impact Texas Driver if you will be taking a driving test;

8. Six hour adult Driver Education course if you are 18-24 years of age;

9. Application;

10. Appointment;

11. Documentation;

12. Signature;

13. Thumbprints;

14. Photo;

15. Fee;

16. Vision exam;

17. Take and pass the knowledge and driving tests.

 

WOW! Lucky this kid didn't want to drive to the supermarket, he only wanted to buy enough weaponry and ammunition to go and kill over 20 people. Tell you what, let's just accept what Texas accepts as a normal, ordinary, often-used procedure for driving licenses and apply it to guns. That works for me.
 

[KanchanaburiGuy]

25 minutes ago, JCauto said:

At least you're consistent in your disingenuousness. Great comparison by the way if illustrating my point was your objective (even though it was not). 

First of all, are there REALLY places where you can get a driver's license without a driving test? Please let me know where, so I can get my wife to go and get one as she's failed at hers twice already. But I think you know that there isn't. Here's how to get one in Texas - https://www.dps.texas.gov/section/driver-license/how-apply-texas-driver-license

 

1. US Citizenship or evidence of lawful presence;

2. Texas residency;

3. ID;

4. SSN;

5. Texas vehicle registration for each vehicle you own;

6. Proof of insurance for each vehicle you own;

7. Evidence of completion of Impact Texas Driver if you will be taking a driving test;

8. Six hour adult Driver Education course if you are 18-24 years of age;

9. Application;

10. Appointment;

11. Documentation;

12. Signature;

13. Thumbprints;

14. Photo;

15. Fee;

16. Vision exam;

17. Take and pass the knowledge and driving tests.

 

WOW! Lucky this kid didn't want to drive to the supermarket, he only wanted to buy enough weaponry and ammunition to go and kill over 20 people. Tell you what, let's just accept what Texas accepts as a normal, ordinary, often-used procedure for driving licenses and apply it to guns. That works for me.
 

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! 

 

 

[JCauto]

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?

Edited June 9, 2022 by JCauto

[James105]

3 hours 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! 

 

 

As long as you meet the prerequisite... which in your case was passing a driving test in New Jersey!  I'm getting the impression that 2nd amendment advocates are not the sharpest pencils in the box, which is why these debates never go anywhere.  

 

"It’s hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it’s damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person" - Bill Murray 

[KanchanaburiGuy]

2 hours ago, JCauto said:

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?

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

 

That phrase exists because the only people locks actually stop.......... are honest people. The dishonest people don't think twice about breaking through your lock to get what they want. 

 

No, we're not talking about locks; we're talking about guns. But the same concept applies. 

 

The only people who are going to care about your licenses and training............ are the people least likely to ever do what you're trying to protect everyone from! 

 

Generally speaking, it is not the law-abiding citizens who are out their waving their guns around and shooting up places. 

 

And the people who ARE waving their guns around and shooting up places............ won't give a hoot about your legally required licenses or training.

 

Licenses and training are for law-abiding citizens............ in the very same way........ that "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.

 

But a mass shooter isn't worried about shooting someone accidentally. The shooting, maiming, and killing they have in mind.......... is very, VERY intentional! 

 

So, if your licensing and training is not going to change a criminals mind or change a mass shooter's mind............. who exactly is it supposed to help? 

 

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? 

 

Cheers! 

[KanchanaburiGuy]

25 minutes ago, James105 said:

As long as you meet the prerequisite... which in your case was passing a driving test in New Jersey!  I'm getting the impression that 2nd amendment advocates are not the sharpest pencils in the box, which is why these debates never go anywhere.  

 

"It’s hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it’s damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person" - Bill Murray 

I have no way of knowing whether the officials in Arizona KNEW whether or not I had passed a driving test in New Jersey. All they knew for sure was that I had a valid New Jersey license. 

 

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

 

In my experience, people who feel compelled to run other people down............ almost always do so from below, not above. They're trying to pull others down into the lonely wasteland that would otherwise be their intellect. 

[JCauto]

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.

[habanero]

On 6/9/2022 at 2:15 AM, JCauto said:

At least you're consistent in your disingenuousness. Great comparison by the way if illustrating my point was your objective (even though it was not). 

First of all, are there REALLY places where you can get a driver's license without a driving test? Please let me know where, so I can get my wife to go and get one as she's failed at hers twice already. But I think you know that there isn't. Here's how to get one in Texas - https://www.dps.texas.gov/section/driver-license/how-apply-texas-driver-license

 

1. US Citizenship or evidence of lawful presence;

2. Texas residency;

3. ID;

4. SSN;

5. Texas vehicle registration for each vehicle you own;

6. Proof of insurance for each vehicle you own;

7. Evidence of completion of Impact Texas Driver if you will be taking a driving test;

8. Six hour adult Driver Education course if you are 18-24 years of age;

9. Application;

10. Appointment;

11. Documentation;

12. Signature;

13. Thumbprints;

14. Photo;

15. Fee;

16. Vision exam;

17. Take and pass the knowledge and driving tests.

 

WOW! Lucky this kid didn't want to drive to the supermarket, he only wanted to buy enough weaponry and ammunition to go and kill over 20 people. Tell you what, let's just accept what Texas accepts as a normal, ordinary, often-used procedure for driving licenses and apply it to guns. That works for me.
 

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?

[JCauto]

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?

[Iamfalang]

4 Americans dead, absolute tragedy.    Headline news for months, for sure.

 

Now think about China, Burma, Philippines, North Korea, Russia, Ukraine....

 

4 would be a dream number there.   BUT the world focuses on America.  of course.   I'm just asking for equal coverage for all atrocities.  

[KanchanaburiGuy]

On 6/10/2022 at 10:51 AM, JCauto said:

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.

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

 

Did you know that federal regulation makes 21 the age for buying alcohol nationwide, but the allowable age for consuming and possessing is determined by the  individual States----18, in some?

 

But this only applies to PUBLIC consumption. 

 

And did you know that in most States, PRIVATE consumption of alcohol is unregulated? Alcohol can be consumed in the home.......... legally........ at any age! 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_drinking_age#:~:text=In the United States%2C the,drinking age varies by state.

 

And did you know that on some military bases, with a valid military ID, 18-year olds can buy alcohol? 

 

I also know that when I bartended for a short stint in Sacramento a long, long time ago.......... resulting in me be studying California's laws governing alcohol sales and consumption........... that........... at the time......... although the legal drinking age was 21, with a valid military ID, a person could be served at 18. (With Sacramento having two air bases nearby---Mather and McClellan---this was important to know!) - - - - (No idea if this has changed in the 40 years between then and now, though! Lol) 

 

So, when you try to use alcohol as a point of comparison, it's not nearly so cut-and-dried as you'd like us to believe. (I'm guessing you didn't know ANY of what I've clarified in this post, but barreled ahead, anyway! ) 

 

(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! )

 

Cheers! 

 

 

[JCauto]

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.