The Gun debate sandbox


Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 5141 - 5160 of total 5785 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Apr 9, 2013 - 01:33pm PT
Coz, will you be my daddy?
Dave Kos

Social climber
Apr 9, 2013 - 01:44pm PT
The simple choice would be to go hunting with anyone that does not have a history of shooting people in the face.

Dave Kos

Social climber
Apr 9, 2013 - 01:45pm PT

Zero People Killed in Mass Stabbing


Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Apr 9, 2013 - 02:17pm PT
How about a compromise?

I'll go hunting with Biden, and consult Cheney on home defense.
Dave Kos

Social climber
Apr 9, 2013 - 02:21pm PT
Cheney would advise you to bulldoze the house down the street because the owner might be planning to buy a weapon that he might use to rob you someday.

And then he would happily offer his contracting services to the homeowner in need of repairs.

Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
Apr 9, 2013 - 03:55pm PT
Let's cut to the chase, shall we?


Gym climber
Apr 9, 2013 - 05:16pm PT

As your Daddy, I have to say I'm disappointed in you for not taking on, The Bird.

You seem to have no problem taking on other old Dad's, so what gives... son?

We're talking a target rich environment.

Apr 9, 2013 - 07:11pm PT
Repubs Are Caving On Background Checks; Tea Party Candidates Revving Up For 2016

Sen. Joe Manchin says he is on the verge of a bipartisan deal to expand background checks for gun sales, an agreement that could lead to the biggest change in U.S. gun laws in nearly 20 years.
Manchin, a West Virginia Democrat, has been meeting with conservative GOP Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania over the past week to try to forge a deal on background checks.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who is also closely involved in the issue, said the two sides were on the verge of an important breakthrough, one that would allow Senate action on an hugely controversial topic. “We’re not there yet, but we’re closer than we’ve ever been.”

Won't make a damn bit of difference as far as guns are concerned...but the wingnut base sure as hell won't see it that way

Then we move on to immigration, another huge lose-lose issue for repubs.

Dr. F.

Big Wall climber
Apr 9, 2013 - 07:34pm PT
Credit: Dr. F.

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Apr 9, 2013 - 08:21pm PT
As your Daddy, I have to say I'm disappointed in you for not taking on, The Bird.

Daddy, please don't be disappointed.

I thought I did a pretty good job of correcting his spelling. If that was TheBird, that was his only post. I'd hate it if we (I) scared him away... so soon... with so much more potential for making fun of the old geezer!

Social climber
So Cal
Apr 9, 2013 - 08:28pm PT
Somehow I am unable to come up with any unacceptable outcome resulting from Joe Biden going hunting in heavy brush with Dick Cheney.

Joe would trip and shoot himself before Dick ever had a chance to get a shot off.
Toker Villain

Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
Apr 9, 2013 - 10:02pm PT

I said unacceptable.

Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
Apr 9, 2013 - 10:21pm PT
Joe would trip and shoot himself before Dick ever had a chance to get a shot off.

One thing they have in common: both supported the war in Vietnam, and both dodged the draft. Two chickenhawks!

Big Wall climber
Reno NV
Apr 10, 2013 - 12:33am PT
Curious what the average street cop thinks about "gun control"?
You might be surprised.

Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
Apr 10, 2013 - 09:40am PT
Curious what the average street cop thinks about "gun control"?
You might be surprised.

Thirty question supposedly on gun control, not one about universal background checks?

Asking police officers to comment on the effectiveness of unpublished "White House proposed legislation"?

Comprehensive survey, NOT.

Nothing surprising at all, I was a Gun Nut once, joined the military because of it, I'm sure plenty of Gun Nuts become cops for the same reason.



Gym climber
South of Heaven
Apr 10, 2013 - 10:00am PT
Not surprised at all. LEOs deal with the dregs of society on a day to day basis. They see the worst society has to offer. They see the world VERY differently than it really is for most Merkins. By far the most uptight, worried, paranoid people I know are LEO's. And rightly so... they are put in unpredictable situations and face potential danger constantly.

An example is Ron, a former LEO. I mentioned meeting some Hispanic hunters in the woods a while back. He immediately assumed they were poachers... up to no good. I wonder if he would have thought that if they were white, but that is another issue. He wondered if I had considered they may be poachers and if I checked their hunting licenses or thought to report them.

OF COURSE NOT. I assumed they were just folks out hunting. They kindly moved their truck off the road so I could get by. We climbed all day, waved as we passed them on the way out, and that was that.

Totally different reality. One assumes everyone else (especially Hispanics) are up to no good. The other assumes most people are just people like the rest of us. The only reason for everyone to be armed is if you think everyone else has malicious intent.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Apr 10, 2013 - 10:11am PT
Please re-post that bit Wes,about the hunters, i think there must be more to it, but frankly i dont remember it.

As far as military and LEOs past and present:

Credit: Ron Anderson
dirt claud

Social climber
san diego,ca
Apr 10, 2013 - 10:21am PT
I thought this blog was a good one, not about gun laws, but rather a question about what influences the violence. I thought it was an interesting read. The comments are informative as well.

After the Huffington Post signed me on as a blogger and allowed me to write op-ed pieces on any topic, for two years, ranging from books to sports to reviews to pop culture, something changed in our relationship. It was sudden.
I wrote this piece for Huff Po in late December, 2012. For some reason, the editors wouldn’t print it. Like every other article I’d written, I submitted the piece on their backstage for signed bloggers, but nothing happened. It didn’t go up on their site. I waited, and it didn’t happen.
A few days went by. Then a week. I contacted the editors, and they didn’t respond. Then I contacted again, and they let me know that they wouldn’t publish the piece.
I asked why.
No response.
I emailed again.
No response again.
And now they won’t let me write anything at all. I’m off the blogroll.
So I must have touched a nerve. And that made me ask, who’s paying salaries here?
Why is the Huffington Post’s Tech section so popular?
Who is advertising?
Who is vetting content?
What follows is an op-ed article on a piece of the school shooter puzzle. I don’t pretend that this covers everything, but here is a key component from my point of view. And as a current high school teacher and a former troubled teen, I have a strong opinion on the topic.
This is what the Huffington Post doesn’t want its readers to see.
My junior year in high school, I was caught with a loaded, stolen handgun on school property at my school in East Tennessee. Since the owner of the pistol didn’t want to press charges, I simply forfeited the handgun to the local sheriff’s deputy, then was promptly expelled from the school. No arrest. No counseling. No follow-up. I was never required to see a psychologist or explain my intentions. This was 1994, long before the famous shootings at Thurston High School, Columbine, Red Lake, Aurora, Clackamas, and Newtown.
Although I had some loner tendencies, I was also what psychologist call a “failed joiner.” I tried to fit in at each school I attended. I tried to be cool, but I usually failed. I was gun obsessed. I considered killing myself, but more often I thought about killing others.
I carried a loaded pistol my junior year in high school. I stuffed it in my belt, ready for use.
The next year, I carried a sawed-off shotgun in my backpack. I liked guns and I had access to them. But I also carried a sheath-knife. I was obsessed with weapons of all kind. For a while, I carried a framing hammer.
Thankfully, I never shot or stabbed or bludgeoned anyone. Although I got in many, many fights, and although I thought about seriously hurting people with the weapons that I carried, I never did. And eventually, with the support of some incredible adults in my life, plus some maturing experiences, I moved past my tendencies toward violence, matured, got back into school, and grew up. After three high school expulsions, I have now – ironically – become a high school teacher.
As a teacher, I’ve spent a lot of time this past week [December 27, 2012] thinking about the Newtown shooting, school shootings in general, their causes and possible preventions.
It’s scary now to think that I ever had anything in common with school shooters. I don’t enjoy admitting that. But I did have a lot in common with them. I was angry, had access to guns, felt ostracized, and didn’t make friends easily. I engaged in violence and wrote about killing people in my notes to peers.
But there is one significant difference between me at 16 and 17 years of age and most high school shooters: I didn’t play violent video games.
As a child, my mother taught me that all video games were “evil.” That’s the word she used. And although that word might be a little extreme, I grew up thinking that there was something very, very wrong with pretending on a video screen. My mother also called playing video games “wasting your life” and “dumbing yourself down.” I thought my mother was ridiculous, but her opinions stuck with me anyway.
Thus, when it came to high school, when I was a social failure and very, very angry, I had no practice with on-screen violence. ”Call of Duty” didn’t exist yet, but even if it had, I wouldn’t have played it. I wouldn’t have practiced putting on body armor and I wouldn’t have shot thousands of people with an AR rifle. I have likewise never practiced “double-tapping” people. I have never walked into a room and killed everyone inside. My students tell me that it’s possible to “pistol whip a prostitute” in Grand Theft Auto, but I haven’t done it.
But Jeff Weise did. He played thousands of first-person shooter hours before he shot and killed nine people at and near his Red Lake, Minn., school, before killing himself.
And according to neighbors and friends, Clackamas shooter Jacob Tyler Roberts played a lot of video games before he armed himself with a semi-automatic AR-15 and went on a rampage at the Clackamas Town Center in Portland, Oregon last week.
Also, by now, it is common knowledge that Adam Lanza, who murdered 20 children and six women in video-game style, spent many, many hours playing “Call of Duty.” In essence, Lanza – and all of these shooters – practiced on-screen to prepare for shooting in real-life.
Now I am not anti-video game crusader Jack Thompson. I’m not suggesting that everyone who plays a video game will act out that video game in reality. But I am saying that it is very dangerous to allow troubled, angry, teenage boys access to killing practice, even if that access is only virtual killing practice. The military uses video games to train soldiers to kill, yet we don’t consider “Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3″ training for addicted teenage players? A high school boy who plays that game 30 hours per week isn’t training to kill somebody?
I am not surprised that school shooters love violent video games. As an angry, troubled teen, I would’ve probably loved to shoot hundreds of people on-screen. That might’ve felt nice.
But now, as a teacher, I worry about my most troubled male students playing games like “Halo 4″ and “Assassin’s Creed 3,” bragging about violent actions that they’ve never done in the real world. A scrawny, angry boy’s who’s failing socially is a scary video game addict.
I was walking behind two teenage boys in the hall at my high school the other day and I heard one talking about slitting someone’s throat. He said, “I just came up behind him, pulled out my knife so quietly and cut his throat.”
The other boy said, “Yeah, then I killed everyone else in less than, like, 10 seconds. Just slaughtered them.”
I looked at these two boys: Tall and awkward. Unathletic. I knew that they weren’t tied-in socially, that they both struggled in classes and with peers. Yet they were capable of incredible and sudden violence on screen. Together, they could slit throats and shoot everyone. I asked one of them later, and he said that he played Call of Duty “an average of 40 hours per week, at least.”
Is this what we want angry, adolescent boys to do? Do we want to give them this practice? Do we want them to glorify violent actions, to brag about violence in the school’s hallways? Or even worse, given the perfect equation of frustration + opportunity + practice, do we want them to do as Weise, Roberts, and Lanza did, and act out these fantasies in real life? Do we want them to yell, “I am the shooter” as they enter a crowded mall – as Roberts did? Or dress like video-game shooters – as Lanza and Roberts were – before heading into a murder spree?
Especially with teenage boys, we have to decide what we want them to do, what we want them to love, what we want them to emulate. Even if they don’t end up shooting people in a school, if they’re practicing car-jackings, knifings, and putting on body-armor as first-person shooters, what are they preparing to do with the rest of their lives? Will these video-game practice sessions make them better husbands or fathers? Will these boys become patient and understanding friends? Better co-workers?
Please support the bill introduced Wednesday by U.S. Senator Jay Rockefeller, directing the National Academy of Sciences to examine whether violent games and programs lead children to act aggressively. Please lobby with your local representatives as Rockefeller presses the Federal Trade Commission and Federal Communications Commission to expand their studies.
But I have another idea beyond important political action. Something positive to think about:
Get kids outside. Take them out and let them wander around in the woods. Let them canoe across a lake. Let them backpack through a mountain range. Give them a map and compass assignment. Give frustrated youth an opportunity to challenge themselves in the natural world.
Have you ever heard of a school shooter who’s hobbies are kayaking, rock climbing, and fly-fishing? If that seems absurd – and it does seem absurd to me – we might be onto something. I don’t think that those hobbies can create a school shooter. There’s just something abut the natural world that defuses anger.
I know this because the outdoors helped saved my life. An outdoor diversion program for troubled teens started the process when I was sixteen. Camping and hiking and climbing helped me mature further as a nineteen and twenty year old. And now, as the director of a high school outdoor program, one of my student leaders said recently that “the outdoor program saves lives.”
That’s not me. That’s nature. Kids need the outdoors.
Help the young people. Get them outside.

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Apr 10, 2013 - 10:31am PT
Interesting. I'm not convinced video games (or movies) lead to violent actions and I don't play them and I'm clearly not an expert on anything... but I find it interesting the first killing game I played (Doom) was given to us (illegally I might add) by someone who is now an LEO. All my "bad" stoner friends were playing Tony Hawk skate something something and the like... to this day I don't think any of them play those stupid violent games.

But I did name a boulder problem "double tap" so you never know, I could snap.
dirt claud

Social climber
san diego,ca
Apr 10, 2013 - 11:10am PT
I was more in agreement with the getting the kids outside thing, let nature teach you some things, those outdoor programs for troubled youth seam to make sense and work.
Messages 5141 - 5160 of total 5785 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks

Try a free sample topo!

SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews