Lifetime Supporter
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by erikv11

  1. But c'mon, hopefully people don't really think school shootings are the only ones that count?  As mentioned, the problem is gun violence. School shootings are a symptom.  

    If you want to think about numbers of shootings look at something like  We are two months into 2018, and the USA is sitting at 9000 incidents, 2400 deaths, 4000 injuries. 

    For more shooting rates fun facts consider .  The good news is, the death rate by violent shooting in the US is still less than in Iraq!  Unfortunately however, the rate in US is twice as high or higher than places like Syria, Jordan, Yemen, Pakistan. etc. etc. lots of good company there.  Or maybe we should pat ourselves on the back for still having a lower rate than El Salvador, even though we are the undisputed champion of the world in guns per capita (

  2. 14 minutes ago, Che'_Moderator said:

    Give everyone gun. Let it sort itself out. 

    Ummm hello, we're doing that right now.

    1 hour ago, Che'_Moderator said:

    I never said it was the answer. I said it would bandaid these situations which are not even really a problem. The real issue here is cultural. No one wants to address that though, and even if we did it would take generations. The only way to stop some weeaboo virgin with a gun and entitlement problem is by force. 


    As for LEO response, it was technically correct by FDLE SOPs. Cops have no obligation to save your ass per Gonzales v. US Supream Court. Schools are high collateral and beat cops do not have the weapon systems or training to engage properly. 

    Fair enough on the first point.

    Common ground on the second, I agree.

  3. Even LEOs failed to respond properly this time, and I'm sure it's not the only time. Can we really expect "trained" personnel on site to do any better?

    More importantly, and I seldom say this but Che you are just plain wrong, dumping more weapons into the soup is not just wrong it is absurd.  Regardless of who is carrying them.

    So let's see first we arm/protect/harden the schools, then maybe the next soft target so every public event (concerts, sports, parks, etc), then the next ... Feed the beast or starve it, which makes more sense?

    It's admirable to suggest ways to curb school shootings, unfortunately that kind of thinking is going after a symptom not the pathology.  Go for the bigger picture. the comment about kids being killed by their parents gets closer to the underlying issue. The issue is gun violence. Let's get rid of gun violence by pitting it against gun violence? I think not.

  4. OK, so this is what gray looks like, we now have (1) regulating guns is pointless because people will always be able to get a gun if they really want one (3-D printing, internet, etc), but on the other hand (2) once we start regulating guns at all, before you know it no one will be able to get/have a gun (confiscation), and now we flip to (3) the big picture is that guns will never be taken away anyway, so why try?

    Based on 2 out of 3 (so far), I will infer that even you might agree that all things considered, no one is going to get their guns taken away by gun control. Welcome aboard, let's start with some basic legislation.

    The point of the car analogy is that we have rules because common sense says we need them and overall they work reasonable well, although recent events give cause for concern. Incidental harm (drunk driving, asleep at the wheel) is an ongoing issue with ongoing attention. I'm sorry but that's not how it is with guns, the rules are not working, they are failing miserably. Or wait, is this also not a fact, but just my opinion: are the rules working, and the level of gun violence is tolerable? 

    The truck bomb is irrelevant to the gun argument, it is a distraction that changes the subject. The fact that other bad shit happens is irrelevant to the gun discussion. If you want to push for truck control or fertilizer control, go for it I will not gripe about guns while you do it.

  5. 3 hours ago, Commander Riker said:

     ... several things 

    So let's see, you first argue that regulating guns is pointless because people will always be able to get a gun if they really want one (3-D printing, internet, etc), then a few posts down you argue that once we start regulating guns at all, before you know it no one will be able to get/have a gun (confiscation).

    Since these arguments are contradictory, which one do you really believe?  Both of them? Neither one? In reality, neither argument is the truth, both are shortsighted and even lazy.

    The color of truth is gray. Black and white is easy to talk about but it's not the real world. There really is such a thing as just some gun control, just like there really is such a thing as some restrictions on how you are allowed to legally use a vehicle. Should we abolish all traffic laws, because we can't stop people from breaking them?  Are traffic laws a slippery slope that will lead to confiscation of all vehicles? No gun control measures will fix everything for everyone, not for you and not for me, but we can eliminate a lot of violence with just the most obvious steps. If you're so sure that's wrong, I dare you to prove it - enact some reasonable measures and see what happens.

    Truck bombs are irrelevant.  When a hundred people are dying from truck bombs every day too, I'm all for bringing them into the discussion. 

  6. How long does it take to wound 550 with hammers? Even with a car? A lot longer than 10 minutes. 

    If you can't stop all of the mass killings only some of them, then go ahead and enact changes to stop some of them.

    blah blah blah ... there are always retorts to why small steps don't fix everything, but of course they don't. It's a nasty fucking problem, there are no instant fixes, like any complex problem start with small steps.

    Like, don't eliminate restrictions on gun silencers. Don't walk around saying the ridiculous excess of guns is this country is not a problem, that has ONLY upped the body count. 

  7. 16 hours ago, Fudge_Brownie said:

    I see a double standard. Religious people don't want laws that stifle their way of life, but want laws that enforce their own.

    There's nothing half baked about that statement. There is no question that legislating on behalf of religion should be out of bounds. The tricky part is finding the line between concepts like "basic moral fiber" and "extremist christianity" or the current rendition of any other locally popular set of beliefs. What's common sense, and what's religious nonsense? And keeping up with religious fluidity is an integral part of the issue, as religions change and adjust their views for various reasons, including some I would be cynical about, but some I would not.

    Alain, printing money just devalues it (causes inflation), it does not redistribute wealth. Collecting taxes gathers existing wealth to apply it to a common purpose. Not sure why you are baiting on an idea that is patently pointless as a long-term policy. Spot usage sure, but not as a permanent solution.

    • Upvote 1