NEW SHOOTING

9andaWiggle said:
Which brings up another interesting, hypocritical point. The entertainment industry (Hollywood) is largely liberal, creative people. They are against guns, but when was the last time you saw a movie or show WITHOUT guns in it? Sure, there are a few. But shootouts, explosions, killing, death, mayhem and destruction sell, so they glamorize it to the hilt to maximize profits at the box office. But somehow that isn't deemed a factor in our "gun culture" here in America.
Click to expand...

They've been doing it with video games for many many years. But, personally, I don't believe it has that much effect. Look back in the day when Westerns were flooding TV, the big screen, and toy makers were spewing out cap guns like gum balls. This mass shooting problem just didn't exist. Oh, I'm sure the bigger cities had their murder problems and hostage situations, but high number shootings were non-existent. WHY? One would think kids would just as desensitized by these films and "Gunsmoke" as they are today by video games.
 
Good Times Good Times said:
Your argument is "nobody needs that power, but GTGT you don't think it should be illegal (freedom of choice) do you?", right?
Click to expand...

There's still wool over some people's eyes when it comes to power. Back in the day the insurance companies would put huge surtaxes on cars with bucket seats, manual trans, anything over certain cubic inches, horsepower ratings, etc. So, the car mfgs began the smoke screen by rating their engines at "net" power at the wheels with all accessories installed. AND, the engines would make peak power between 5500 rpm and 6500 rpm, depending on the engine so they would rate them at 4400 rpm instead. Take the 427, 435hp aluminum vette engine. At the crank on a good dyno it was north of 575hp. Take the infamous 426 street hemi from chrysler. Rated at 425hp in a vehicle at 4400 rpm actually producing 600 at the crank on a dyno. Well, after the horse power wars ended and the fake fuel crisis was the buzz, this changed back. After all these years, the horse power wars are again on! This time, back to the old days of true dyno ratings. So, the current vehicles LOOK extremely more powerful than yesteryear, when in fact they are a "bit" more powerful. Seriously, putting out 600hp or 650hp on the street or 900hp. Does it really matter when no street suspension can hook that kind of power?
 
Good Times Good Times said:
Your argument is "nobody needs that power, but GTGT you don't think it should be illegal (freedom of choice) do you?", right?
Click to expand...

Actually I originally referenced sevenpins post about taking away rights and becomming Russia. Wasn't intended to pick on you for that one. But if we take away one inanimate object citing safety concerns, what might be next?

One argument is "Nobody NEEDS anything more than a single shot rifle or shotgun for hunting."

One could also say "Nobody NEEDS any vehicle that can accelerate in excess of 10 mph/second or obtain top speeds in excess of the highest posted speed limit in the country".

Nobody NEEDS two hamburger patties on a single burger... Nobody NEEDS 1,000 sq. ft. per person in a home.

Nobody NEEDS anything more than a basic shelter, simple clothes, fresh fruit/vegetables and water to live. Thus, anything else can be taken away because it's deemed "not necessary".

It's a slippery slope.
 
Greg T. said:
There's still wool over some people's eyes when it comes to power. Back in the day the insurance companies would put huge surtaxes on cars with bucket seats, manual trans, anything over certain cubic inches, horsepower ratings, etc. So, the car mfgs began the smoke screen by rating their engines at "net" power at the wheels with all accessories installed. AND, the engines would make peak power between 5500 rpm and 6500 rpm, depending on the engine so they would rate them at 4400 rpm instead. Take the 427, 435hp aluminum vette engine. At the crank on a good dyno it was north of 575hp. Take the infamous 426 street hemi from chrysler. Rated at 425hp in a vehicle at 4400 rpm actually producing 600 at the crank on a dyno. Well, after the horse power wars ended and the fake fuel crisis was the buzz, this changed back. After all these years, the horse power wars are again on! This time, back to the old days of true dyno ratings. So, the current vehicles LOOK extremely more powerful than yesteryear, when in fact they are a "bit" more powerful. Seriously, putting out 600hp or 650hp on the street or 900hp. Does it really matter when no street suspension can hook that kind of power?
Click to expand...

To be fair Greg, when it comes to actual numbers and mechanics on this stuff I'd defer to you on that. All I know is "rubbin' is racin'".... :Roflmao:
 
9andaWiggle said:
Actually I originally referenced sevenpins post about taking away rights and becomming Russia. Wasn't intended to pick on you for that one. But if we take away one inanimate object citing safety concerns, what might be next?

One argument is "Nobody NEEDS anything more than a single shot rifle or shotgun for hunting."

One could also say "Nobody NEEDS any vehicle that can accelerate in excess of 10 mph/second or obtain top speeds in excess of the highest posted speed limit in the country".

Nobody NEEDS two hamburger patties on a single burger... Nobody NEEDS 1,000 sq. ft. per person in a home. Nobody NEEDS
anything more than a basic shelter, simple clothes, fresh fruit/vegetables and water to live.

It's a slippery slope.
Click to expand...

~9 we're not ever going to be on the same page if you can't grant me that many objects have legitimate purposes and guns are created to kill. Until we can get together on that, it's not going to work.
 
Good Times Good Times said:
To be fair Greg, when it comes to actual numbers and mechanics on this stuff I'd defer to you on that. All I know is "rubbin' is racin'".... :Roflmao:
Click to expand...

I've been calculating, designing and building race engines for 41 years and have been watching the market and the EPA go back and forth. It's not been pretty. Being a hot rodder, I may be a biased on this, but I'm enjoying the new hp wars going on. Not only is it good for the industry, it's creating jobs and inspiring excellent new technology. 40 years ago, you never would have dreamed about an 800hp engine that cruises at 60mph and gets 30mpg. We have that today.
 
bbfreeburn said:
Greg, if it weren't for laws there would be no criminals. Right? Certainly there would be no outlaws.
Click to expand...

That's true. But on the other side of the coin, why make criminals out of law abiding citizens? I'll repeat the question I've asked so many times and have yet to receive an answer. How is restricting MY right to protect myself with the weapon of my choice going to stop a person who does not obey the laws?
 
Good Times Good Times said:
~9 we're not ever going to be on the same page if you can't grant me that many objects have legitimate purposes and guns are created to kill. Until we can get together on that, it's not going to work.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I can admit that guns are built to kill things. But you also have to admit that responsible ownership of weapons can bring peace of mind to those who feel the need to have some form of protection for themselves and their family. Plus, there has to be some level of deterrent in the criminal mind performing a risk/reward assessment of their next target.

You don't feel the need to have a gun to protect yourself. That's great. Perhaps your security is partly because others in your community do?

Call me paranoid, and I am to some extent. I don't trust people in general. But I find it hard to believe that even if the 2A was fully repealed and the government rounded up every known weapon from law abiding citizens that it would reduce violent crime or homicides in any meaningful way. It may prevent some accidental deaths, but pre-meditated attacks/homicides... I'm not convinced. Crazy/mad people gonna find a way to hurt others.

One last bit... hitting squirrels and birds for the dinner table is really hard to do with a bow and arrow. You want my family to starve when the EMP's are set off? ;)
 
9andaWiggle said:
Fair enough. I can admit that guns are built to kill things. But you also have to admit that responsible ownership of weapons can bring peace of mind to those who feel the need to have some form of protection for themselves and their family. Plus, there has to be some level of deterrent in the criminal mind performing a risk/reward assessment of their next target.

You don't feel the need to have a gun to protect yourself. That's great. Perhaps your security is partly because others in your community do?

Call me paranoid, and I am to some extent. I don't trust people in general. But I find it hard to believe that even if the 2A was fully repealed and the government rounded up every known weapon from law abiding citizens that it would reduce violent crime or homicides in any meaningful way. It may prevent some accidental deaths, but pre-meditated attacks/homicides... I'm not convinced. Crazy/mad people gonna find a way to hurt others.

One last bit... hitting squirrels and birds for the dinner table is really hard to do with a bow and arrow. You want my family to starve when the EMP's are set off? ;)
Click to expand...

Then again, back to my sentiment. Mass shootings are just the cost of our culture. YOU, ~9, are the politically popular opinion here, but like I've said, then we accept mass shootings if we go your way (which we are by doing nothing), let's quit acting like we want to do something about it, it smacks of being disingenuous in nature. I can't reconcile how you can say "enforce the laws on the books" if you don't believe laws do anything, then you turn around and do "thoughts and prayers/it's a tragedy" after not being willing to do anything (I offer effective solutions, you say why not, round and around)...you admit you don't trust people in general but support 2A.

"thoughts and prayers to the people of [INSERT FUTURE COMMUNITY HERE]! Sad! They were such good people, I can't believe {XYZ PERP} had access to that/those weapon(s). What a tragedy."

Get it cued up.
 
I accept terrorist attacks as the new normal. I accept there is no way to really prevent them. But I don’t accept giving them all the tools to make their attacks as deadly as possible. You can’t buy sarin, why can you buy assault weapons (I can already hear the "I get my rights to all weapons from Jesus Christ himself!!" argument)?

For now, gun control is a lost cause, trust me I realize that, that's why I've moved on to acceptance and template "thoughts and prayers"...the only short-term solution is stopping internet bullet sales and regulating store sales. Not easy, but easier than full scale gun control. Have a national registry that can keep track of how much ammunition individuals are buying and raise red flags when sales in excess of norms are spotted. Although the limit on an allowable stockpile of arms and ammunition would be arguable and arbitrary, there must be a limit. I'd support removal of guns from the civilian population through federal legislative fiat and buyback program — exempting only bona fide hunting firearms. Give people the full market value so that have an incentive to sell their guns back.

If you can't agree to any of that then you're cool with the status quo.
 
Last edited:
Good Times Good Times said:
I accept terrorist attacks as the new normal. I accept there is no way to really prevent them. But I don’t accept giving them all the tools to make their attacks as deadly as possible. You can’t buy sarin, why can you buy assault weapons (I can already hear the "I get my rights to all weapons from Jesus Christ himself!!" argument)?

For now, gun control is a lost cause, trust me I realize that, that's why I've moved on to acceptance and template "thoughts and prayers"...the only short-term solution is stopping internet bullet sales and regulating store sales. Not easy, but easier than full scale gun control. Have a national registry that can keep track of how much ammunition individuals are buying and raise red flags when sales in excess of norms are spotted. Although the limit on an allowable stockpile of arms and ammunition would be arguable and arbitrary, there must be a limit. I'd support removal of guns from the civilian population through federal legislative fiat and buyback program — exempting only bona fide hunting firearms. Give people the full market value so that have an incentive to sell their guns back.

If you can't agree to any of that then you're cool with the status quo.
Click to expand...

I am not a fan of internet ammo sales.

The term "assault weapon" is an oxymoron created by Social Democrats (aka Communist Lite) and perpetuated by their butthole buddies- the mainstream media.
 
Good Times Good Times said:
I accept terrorist attacks as the new normal. I accept there is no way to really prevent them. But I don’t accept giving them all the tools to make their attacks as deadly as possible. You can’t buy sarin, why can you buy assault weapons (I can already hear the "I get my rights to all weapons from Jesus Christ himself!!" argument)?

For now, gun control is a lost cause, trust me I realize that, that's why I've moved on to acceptance and template "thoughts and prayers"...the only short-term solution is stopping internet bullet sales and regulating store sales. Not easy, but easier than full scale gun control. Have a national registry that can keep track of how much ammunition individuals are buying and raise red flags when sales in excess of norms are spotted. Although the limit on an allowable stockpile of arms and ammunition would be arguable and arbitrary, there must be a limit. I'd support removal of guns from the civilian population through federal legislative fiat and buyback program — exempting only bona fide hunting firearms. Give people the full market value so that have an incentive to sell their guns back.

If you can't agree to any of that then you're cool with the status quo.
Click to expand...

Actually, why not on the ammo sales? GregT will be pissed I agree with you on that. lol

But seeing as how the government tracks how much alergy medicine I buy thanks to those dumbass meth heads (I don't use it often, but when I have to pseudophedrine works best at relieving sinus pain/congestion for me), then why not with ammo? Like you said, the limit would be debatable, but maybe rounds bought and spent the same day at a gun range could be exempted?

And it's not that I don't think current laws help. But when they go unenforced or important checks/procedures are missed (especially by those who should know the law and importance of it), there can be catastrophic consequences.

Further, if those whose responsibility is to follow said procedures and enforce the laws cannot do so consistently and effectively, then I do have to ask how more laws being inadequately/incompetently enforced are going to help?

Buybacks. Some people would turn in guns, sure. Criminals wouldn't turn theirs in. Collectors, and many like GregT would never consider giving theirs up either. We would have to send the 3rd Reich door to door with dogs trained to sniff out guns in order to confiscate those weapons. And that kind of police state action is exactly what the 2A intended to prevent.

Anyway, here's a little clip I think you might enjoy. :Biggrin:

 
I WILL ANSWER THAT G. YOU DO HAVE THE RIGHT TO PROTECT YOU AND YOUR FAMILY WITH THE WEAPON OF YOUR CHOICE, NOT WEAPONS. THANKS FOR CLARIFYING THAT. I BELIEVE IT WAS IN THIS THREAD THAT SOMEONE SAID THAT PEOPLE THAT COMMIT THESE MASS SHOOTINGS AND KILLINGS MUST HAVE MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES. SO OWNING MULTIPLE WEAPONS CAUSES MENTAL HEALTH ILLNESS? AND ALL THESE PEOPLE BEING SHOT AND KILLED AT CHURCH, A CONCERT, WALKING DOWN THE STREET OR JUST SITTING IN THEIR HOUSE WATCHING TV, DONT THEIR RIGHTS MATER NOT TO DIE? I HOPE IT NEVER HAPPENS, BUT I THINK SOME PEOPLE WONT SEE THE LIGHT ABOUT GUN CONTROL UNTIL IT HITS CLOSER TO HOME.
 
WAMO said:
I WILL ANSWER THAT G. YOU DO HAVE THE RIGHT TO PROTECT YOU AND YOUR FAMILY WITH THE WEAPON OF YOUR CHOICE, NOT WEAPONS. THANKS FOR CLARIFYING THAT. I BELIEVE IT WAS IN THIS THREAD THAT SOMEONE SAID THAT PEOPLE THAT COMMIT THESE MASS SHOOTINGS AND KILLINGS MUST HAVE MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES. SO OWNING MULTIPLE WEAPONS CAUSES MENTAL HEALTH ILLNESS? AND ALL THESE PEOPLE BEING SHOT AND KILLED AT CHURCH, A CONCERT, WALKING DOWN THE STREET OR JUST SITTING IN THEIR HOUSE WATCHING TV, DONT THEIR RIGHTS MATER NOT TO DIE? I HOPE IT NEVER HAPPENS, BUT I THINK SOME PEOPLE WONT SEE THE LIGHT ABOUT GUN CONTROL UNTIL IT HITS CLOSER TO HOME.
Click to expand...

I'm going to ask you again in hopes of a legitimate answer. Contrary to popular belief, I AM open to suggestions on how to stop the murders. So, given the fact that criminals DO NOT obey laws, what would you do to stop the violence?
 
Greg T. said:
I'm going to ask you again in hopes of a legitimate answer. Contrary to popular belief, I AM open to suggestions on how to stop the murders. So, given the fact that criminals DO NOT obey laws, what would you do to stop the violence?
Click to expand...

I'll give you one that came to mind regarding the recent CA shooter... In this day and age, there's no reason courts could not enter case data immediately after the case is decided by a judge. That info would be held in a Database. This db would be accessible by all police/sheriff/highway patrol agencies. Thus, if a neighbor complains to the police about someone firing a gun at all hours of the day, they could easily look up the person in the complaint and see "this guy has a pending assault case AND a restraining order, and is not supposed to have a gun right now". At that point, arrest and/or confiscation of weapons would be warranted (once the neighbors complaint was investigated and confirmed by the responding officers, of course).

Hindsight is 20/20, but this guy was setting off warning bells left and right, yet nobody reacted to prevent his meltdown.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top