Sutherland Springs Shooting

IDK, ask NJ.

 

Just to reiterate, you keep saying I'm trying to legislate bad behavior though I've said repeatedly I'm not. What's your proposed solution because I haven't seen it here.

I'm not following your "permit" vs "limits" logic but I'll play along. So, free speech also needs permits from the city for large gatherings. We do this to ensure order (traffic) and ensure proper services are lined up. Do you think the government has a right to restrict free speech by forcing organizers to get permits?

Greater than 600 injuries and 100 deaths in the last 18 months and you don't think limits are justified?

What's your solution? I've apparently missed it.

Now we are talking in circles.

You don't think those deaths are also sacrifices for your freedom? I think it's very rational to ask how many victims is too many when you apparently feel your right to have a gun to shoot feral hogs effectively is worth an uncountable amount deaths.

Trolling? I'm serious as a heart attack in this discussion.

 

That I can't answer, but a quick Googling of "The Finger" reveals that it is an ancient insult. It has been used in American culture since the 1800s, so Mr. Rodgers must have known full well what he was doing. I never trusted that guy. I put him in the category as Pee Wee Herman, creepy.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_finger

 

No sir ... I've said you are attempting to legislate a fix to the bad behavior. Correcting the behavior is the goal, right? Or am I wrong?

Seems clear to me ... but evidently it's not clear to all. Limits via passive legislation ... legislation which applies AFTER the action/fact. "fire in theater" is only executed AFTER the perpetrator YELLS.

Your proposed solution would seek to prevent the act with insufficient consideration for the consequences, I might add.

And we already have "permits" ... literally ... ask first, then permit ... vice arrest and prosecute after the fact. Something about innocent until proven guilty is a statement I've read somewhere relating to our Founding. But with firearms ... citizens are presumed guilty until the government certifies them innocent. What kind of "right" is that ... let alone a Constitutionally Enumerated right.

As I said above ... legislative fix for bad behavior.

doesn't matter what I think ... but just understand that seeking to preemptively limit a right enumerated in the Constitution because of misbehavior will neither fix the behavior nor maintain the integrity upon which this nation was Founded.

Again, it doesn't matter what I think. Nor what I feel. The reality is that there is risk involved when honoring a the precepts/tenets/whatever $5 word you want to use ... of a FREE nation. As the saying goes, freedom isn't free ... kicker is ... you wouldn't stipulate that there'd be FEWER casualties from the refrain of 2A infringement ... but I expect that'll make your noggin explode.

No ... we're not "talking" at all because you won't define "assault rifle" You've said you'd support a ban on assault rifles. I'm curious as to what you think that is.

you don't seem to be because you continue to ask questions with presumption rather than sincere seeking of information/understanding (not that I can or would presume myself to be able to completely answer all your questions, but you're not even giving me the opportunity with your own presumption) Hence ... I took your skewed query as a reason to dabble in the "illustrate absurdity with absurdity" (though I clearly didn't illustrate very well, did I?)

My solution? Again ... presumption and the tactic of "place the other party in a defensive position"

I urge honoring the Constitution. Allow the cops to do their job, too. I think this part of the pendulum is swinging back to where it belongs ... but the results won't be realized quite overnight.

I just found this little diddy regarding Chicago's arrest/murder stats over the last 7 years. Curious....

 

@Seattle Husker

You're in luck ... your southerly neighbor is good for her promise of 1995.

 

Hmm .... guess I made someone's ignore list.

 

Nah..I missed the response. In a 3-minute review of the bill it seems more stringent than I'd like but it's going in the right direction. Given Fienstein went so far, it appears to me this is simply for grandstanding purposes with no real attempt to effect change because clearly this would be a non-starter for the NRA bought congresspeople.

 

Perhaps ....

But remember when HRC “grandstanded” the prescription drug coverage by the Fed ... all the ballyhooing???

Now what do we have???

 

I think HRC truly wanted that legislation and erroneously thought she had enough support. Fienstein know gun legislation is going nowhere and simply wants to beat up the pro-gun crowd.

 

*pro 2A crowd ...

I hope you're right ... but she's the reason for the so called -assault weapons ban. That was ridiculous then ... and it still is ... ridiculous.

 

What? I just questioned your assertion that most mass shooters are done by Democrats or Democrat(sic) voters. Turns out, as far as I can tell, I was correct. I really did not want all that unrelated data.

 

you asked for "source data" IIRC and that massive list of data was relevant to establish the degree of the problem, too.

The motherjones list is still the most comprehensive I've found and through the first half of that list, cross referencing with various state SOS's ... the tally is 3:1 "democrat" to "republican." ... some are undetermined ... so .. that means 6:1 GOP to democrat will be the required rate in the crimes from 82-94 (where I stopped checking) to make the point of political persuasion irrelevant. Think that's likely?

So ... no cross reference I've found which has been published ... and isn't "my biased opinion." But it seems the characterization isn't so far out in "left field" so as to be a significant point of challenge.

 

I was not saying it was your bias opinion. That verbiage was in an earlier post which I apologized for. I did not see anything that stated most shooters were Democrats or Democrat(sic) voters. I could have missed it, I am often wrong. Could you just isolate that deduction, I could not find it. I must admit, trying to wade thought that data was like getting a drink from a fire hose. Not trying to be difficult, just did not see it. I know that the capital baseball shooter was a democrat and the S Carolina church shooter was a Republican..

 

.... btw ... Bundys found innocent. So perhaps there really is an out of control Fed in the BLM ... also ... as referenced earlier ... Red River land grab by the Fed was also repelled.

Relevance ... the castigated private landowner profile who "clings to his God, Bible and guns" redneck who is irrational and uneducated; therefore needing to be "taken-care-of" by government regulation.

 

no, you're absolutely right ... it wasn't there in the motherjones list. I have been (slowly) working through that list of identified shooters and trying to determine their political bent.

Most of 'em have been "democrat" leaning as I'm halfway through the list. I am surprised someone else hasn't listed this information. Perhaps snopes would like to finish the task?

 

OK, I think this is all I want to see. I do not know how anyone can make a SWAG whether the shooter is a Democrat or Democrat(sic) leaning. Was it your interpretation or a published source. I can just as easily say most of the cross referenced data indicates that most shooters are Republican or Republic leaning.

I really suspect that most mass shooters have no political bias with the exception of the previously mentioned Baseball shooter, Democrat, and S Carolina church shooter, Republican.

If the data really showed most shooters were Democrats, do you really think Trumps would be silent?

 

Trump is being silent? Lol. Sorry. I’ve heard trump criticized for a lot of things, being silent isn’t one of em.

I thought I was clear but perhaps not. I am in the process of trying to determine if the statement is backed by some sort of identifying data. It may be a nomenclature issue AFA “Republican” or “Democrat” ... I mean, it’s not like a sitting Democrat Senator committed involuntary manslaughter ... but I digress.

The point is whether mass shooters are more likely to support what most contemporary/national democrats support; big govt answers, leniency in sentencing/prosecution in the hope of being rehabilitated.

I’ve not worked on that cross reference project ... so ... what I’m trying to do for both of us is avoid “because I said so”

I identified one source and that was voter registration. Some of these have been simple to designate politically others not as much.

Thanks for your patience. Perhaps we can work on this together?

 

I meany Trump would hop on this in a nano second if there was any hint that most Mass shooters were Democrats. There are a lot of people a lot smarter than me that could figure out an angle if their was one. I think we have beat this hose to death. We apparently are in a deadly embrace so their is no end. I will let you get back to debating assault rifles with SH. I am with him on this issue but have really given up on this and all other issues. I am too old and worn out to worry about it anymore.

 

I understand ...

I sure wish SOMEONE would define "assault rifle."

 

A gun used by the military to kill human beings not a weapon to sold to kill "sportsmen". I do not think people hunt anymore, they really ambush.

 

Ah ... so it's more of a what is done with the rifle than characteristics of the rifle.

So ... any rifle can be an assault rifle if it's used by the military to kill human beings.

Thanks. That's the most honest answer I've heard/read.

 

Is that not hunting? what is the difference in hunting without a corn barrel and one with it? a corn barrel in the middle of Houston isn't going to attract many deer. it has to be placed where the deer already ARE.

Using high powered rifles is more of an infringement to "hunting" than the tactics used to be in position to employ. And yet ... there are more times the wildlife "win" than do the hunters ... amazing, eh?

 

Reminds me of one of my favorite poets, Ogden Nash, who penned this:

The hunter crouches in his blind
'Neath camouflage of every kind
And conjures up a quacking noise
To lend allure to his decoys
This grown-up man, with pluck and luck
is hoping to outwit a duck

 

Yes, that's why elephants are thriving, more lions and Cheetahs that we know what to do with.

It's not that hard. All other industrial countries seem to have solved this difficult problem. We have all the gun deaths, they do not. Then again, they seemed to have solved this health care problem we find ourselves in, get insurance companies out of health care.

 

Frankly, I'm not concerned with what other countries do. they don't have people dying (on homemade rafts) to "reach" their borders as we have with U.S. Shores ... so ... there's something motivating the immigration here (and I mean legal even) over all other countries and even over most combined ... STILL.

Fact is ... as listed in that array previously ... there are 4 places in this country which, if were averaged to the rest of the nation without 'em ... would put the U.S. 2nd from the bottom in aggravated murder rate among industrialized nations ... and again 1st in class where freedom reigns superior. Those 4 locations aren't known for their "lax" (sic) gun laws.

So ... I hear ya ... I feel the loss with those who suffer believe it or not, but I recognize more firearm laws is NOT the right answer for a nation which heralds freedom and liberty as important.

 

Wow. That is 100% back-asswards. Get the ******* federal government out of health care first.

 

Maybe you missed it, thousands have died trying to reach their shores.

 

Yes, by all means keep our profit driven health care system. We spend twice as much per capita as the next highest industrial with far worse results. Our drug costs are the highest in the world thanks to Medicare part D provision which PROHIBITS the government from bartering with our big pharama on drug cost passed during Bush's 1sr term. Yes, we have all the answers.

 

no sir ... I was trying to use the mortality rate as an indication of motivation ...but the bottom line is the immigration numbers and the U.S. exceeds 'em all by a BUNCH.

Is George Soros paying for the imports ... or are these people immigrating because ... they WANT to do so ... despite what some think are inferior firearm laws.

Hence ... comparing to other nations for firearm laws is a non-starter when THIS one is the target of most immigration efforts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...dependent_territories_by_immigrant_population

 

OK, which country in Europe are all those deaths attributed to sir. Are they allocated out? I would like to know how they are dealt with in your statistics.