The Gun debate sandbox

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 5561 - 5580 of total 5891 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Toker Villain

Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
Jul 15, 2014 - 09:52am PT
I did know a number of people that have been shot to death, fortunately none super close.

Yes, it would be nice to make a danger free world, but the truth is that nobody gets out alive.
TradEddie

Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
Jul 15, 2014 - 09:55am PT
Madbolter, if you consider your "crime prevention" website to be an independent or even remotely reliable source, you need to think again. It was almost funny to read how blatant the lies and omissions were, and that was without even fact-checking the references.

Are you sure Ron hasn't figured out your password?

TE







madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jul 15, 2014 - 12:28pm PT
I was making a statement about an individual with a gang tattoo, not a about gang culture in general.

I don't know what that means. You were making FYI statements about teardrop tattoos. I'm telling you that in general you are wrong.

Sorry your friend's brother was murdered, but he fits the profile of the gang members I was describing (i.e. total losers).

"Fits the profile?" Funny. I made it clear that Richard never WAS a "gang member." Richard was a wannabe, a hanger-on, an expendable bug that DIDN'T have what it took to actually BE a member.

So, if this sort of "data" is the basis of your "profile," that would explain why your profile is so off.

Actual gang MEMBERS have made it through a ruthlessly Darwinian selection process, and to call them "losers" really indicates that you don't know what you are talking about. Sorry to be blunt, but everything you say comes completely apart from my decades of first-hand experience.

My knowledge of gangs is principally from latino gangs in East LA, so I'm surprised at your paranoia over a teardrop tattoo in the IE. There really isn't a whole lot of difference between the latino LA empire gang cultures. I don't read about it, I work in a job where I deal with gang members and gang violence daily.

Yes, the SoCal gangs are pretty monolithic, and I do have a good deal of experience with the Norwalk to East LA versions of the IE same thing. In general an outlined teardrop signifies what you said, but a filled in one generally signifies what I said.

"Paranoia?" What are you talking about?

You "work in a job...." That's deliciously vague, I'm sure by design. What are you? A social worker? A PO? The actual LEOs know better than most, and they can often extract some real information. But everybody else that "works with" these types is deluded if they think they are getting anything APPROACHING a straight scoop from gangland types.

Oh, and remember: You thought of Richard as a "gang member" (otherwise, how could he fit your "profile"). So, if you think of a guy like him as the sort of people I'm talking about, again, your cluelessness is showing.

Unless you are an actual LEO (and I'm not talking prison guard), these people are laughing at you behind your back after every encounter they have with you. And if you take their "sincerity" as genuine in whatever context you are in with them, then they HAVE played you and have every reason to be laughing at you behind your back.

"Paranoia?" Seriously, man, you have NO idea what you are talking about.

I'm not trying to drift the thread here as it's about gun control etc., but your fear of gang members and your need to conceal carry fits a profile of all people I know who feel the need to carry a gun. That profile is being afraid, and feeling a sense of control of that fear by carrying a gun.

Well, actually that ONE paragraph was relevant to the topic at hand.

Of course, your "profile" is about as accurate in this case as you including Richard in your earlier "profile" was.

Good luck with your continued "profiling."

The reality is, there will be no zombie apocalypse and you will not encounter the next Adam Lanza standing in line in front of you at the mall. There is a lot of wasted, negative energy spent by people running over crime scenarios in their head.

Odds are that you are right. Odds are that my home will never be flooded; I carry flood insurance anyway.

We do all sorts of things in life that are minimal hassle and yet carry various expenses of time and money. We do them anyway.

Paranoid, I guess.

It's basically impossible to prepare for freak occurrences like 9/11 or the next columbine shooting, or a dirty bomb detonated in the Rose Bowl.

True enough. Your point?

Are you saying that ALL forms of preparedness are a waste of resources? Are you saying "the government's got us covered?"

Are you saying that there's "no bang for the buck" in carrying a gun? My response would be that you apparently think it's much more of a problem/hassle to do so than it actually is. I'm happy enough with the "bang for the buck."

I'm typing by a window, perhaps someone might shoot me in the head? Perhaps, but I can't live life mitigating every single possible bad outcome.

This is just a stupid argument, frankly. And you yourself belie your own claims here on a constant basis. You do countless things in your life to mitigate very, very, VERY tiny risks. Yet you do them all the time!

The very fact that you pay a police force belies your argument.

Weird stuff happens, but I don't think you need to be misanthropic and unduly paranoid about gang violence, which is mostly gang on gang crime. People who aren't involved with gang culture aren't the primary victims here.

More babbling, including the dreaded psychobabbling.

"Misanthropic and unduly paranoid?"

First, what would "unduly paranoid" BE? Is it possible to be "duly paranoid?" What would THAT be?

And "misanthropic?" Oh wow! Just WOW!

If you are not a health care professional, I'd say: Leave it to the experts. And if you ARE an "expert," I'd say that you are a classic example of why I have just about zero respect for them.

By your lights, just about anybody with enough experience to KNOW that the boogieman is real is "unduly paranoid."

And your claim that "People who aren't involved with gang culture aren't the primary victims here" is either vacuous or outright wrong. Of course, you might mean by "involved" something like "living in the wrong place at the wrong time." Or, by "primary" you might mean "primary target."

But "primary victim" is incorrect. And the secondary violence that ripples out from the primary violence is indeed "gang related" but harder to trace back to its proximate cause. It is real nevertheless.

To bring this all back to a fine point, however, as I said, a gun can't "make you safe," but it can give you a fighting chance in any of a WIDE range of scenarios.

None of those scenarios is "likely" to happen to any particular person. But neither is a flood at my house.

Do YOU carry flood insurance? Does it cost you ANYTHING? Is the bang for the buck worth it to you?

Do YOU pay for the cops in your city? Does that cost you ANYTHING? What are the odds that you, personally, will find yourself needing a cop? Is the bang for the buck worth it to you?

Are you "fearful" or "paranoid" for answering "yes" to any of those questions?

Give me a break!
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jul 15, 2014 - 12:35pm PT
It was almost funny to read how blatant the lies and omissions were

If they were so blatant, then you should be able to instantly trot out half-a-dozen examples.

Do tell....

I predict that you simply didn't agree, so, of course, that means that the information consisted of "lies and omissions."

The POINT is that for every site you trot out, I can trot out others. Back and forth. The "facts" on this subject are well nigh impossible to interpret. So, all this talk about how gun control laws "work" in "other countries" is pure fluff.

The burden of proof is on people claiming that they WORK. That is the positive claim; and that claim flies in the face of a great deal of experience we do have with strict gun control law in areas like Chicago and DC.

You finding a strict gun-control area that has low crime does NOT make your case. What you need to demonstrate is causality, which is a higher bar than correlation! And you don't even have correlation, because there are TOO MANY counterexamples.

So, the bar to claim that they don't appear to work is a much lower bar to get over than your claim that they do. ALL I need to do is attack your claimed correlation, and I'm done. That's EASY to do! There are SO many counterexamples to even a claimed correlation.

But YOU have to get FAR beyond mere correlation, and that's HARD to do!

Good luck with that.
the Fet

climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
Jul 15, 2014 - 12:36pm PT
Come on now. What are the "many" federal laws to which you refer? Clinton signed a DUI law in 2000, but it applies ONLY on federal lands, such as national parks, military bases, and some off-road areas. Surely you are not touting that law as having "turned the tide" or even significantly contributed to the "turn around."

No, states must pass 0.08 limits or lose highway funding. Just like the law raising the drinking age to 21.

Gun laws should probably be similar. CO type regulations should be passed nationwide or the states face consequences. Keep the laws at the state level but have a national standard or criminals will just transport across state lines.

DC is a good example. The y can drive for 5 minutes and buy a handgun, without a background check, from a private party in Virginia. What good are DC laws then?
scrubbing bubbles

Social climber
Uranus
Jul 15, 2014 - 01:46pm PT
All you guys obsessed with guns, think of a way to reduce gun violence in the US by at least 50 percent. Think hard and then make it happen. Fact is, you have zero clue...so within 100 years all the guns will be taken out of public hands by what you will call a left leaning Supreme Court. All these dangerous toys will be taken out of your hands, and the guns will be purged from the criminal classes as well, by radical methods.

Finally our murder rate will resemble a civilized country's murder rate, not what we have now.

In the meantime, go ahead and form radical armed militias...the black panthers and Mexican gangbangers will also form their legal, radical militias, the left will form militias to attack your right wing militias...far right wing militias will form to attack the ordinary right wing militias



Are you happy, gun nuts? You finally turned the USA into the Middle East

.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jul 15, 2014 - 02:14pm PT
Finally our murder rate will resemble a civilized country's murder rate, not what we have now.

It already does. So, job done.

Next....

Are you happy, gun nuts? You finally turned the USA into the Middle East

Now I know that you are just trolling.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jul 15, 2014 - 02:40pm PT
No, states must pass 0.08 limits or lose highway funding. Just like the law raising the drinking age to 21.

How do you think that that reduction from .1 to .08 has made a huge difference? Do you really think that one person that was going to drive drunk at .1 suddenly thinks, "Oh, sheesh, the limit is .08, and I think I'm a bit over. Better give the keys to a friend."? Never happened.

The law MIGHT (repeat, logically possibly) have raised awareness a bit and had a FEW people ensure that they do, say, two drinks instead of three. But what are they doing driving at .08 anyway??? MOST people are really not fit to drive even at .08.

(Don't get me started on texting while driving!)

No, the BIG effect has been had via education and really in-your-face groups like MADD.

And teenage drunk-driving is STILL epidemic. Reduced, but still outrageous.

Gun laws should probably be similar. CO type regulations should be passed nationwide or the states face consequences.

The problem with this approach is that, like the 55 speed limit was, it is basically the feds extorting the states to do what the feds didn't (then) believe they had the power to do on their own.

It's like the feds putting a gun to the heads of the states and saying, "Now, it's your 'free' right to pass this law, and we know you want to. So we're just 'encouraging' you to do so NOW."

Yeah, right.

You can't pretend it's not a federal law as long as the feds are extorting the states to do what any particular state doesn't otherwise intend to do.

That IS the struggle in the United STATES! The feds simply cannot (and should not) do or extort the states to do what any particular state does not intend to do. Thus, for that freedom and balance of power, we sometimes don't get sweeping, universal oversight we might have in a more "totalitarian" regime.

Perhaps the real problem is that the people of DC simply don't accept the outright bans DC has in place. So they engage in civil disobedience, and consequently more guns make it into the hands of criminals than otherwise would. And if DC could demonstrate that criminally-held guns were making it in from this or that particular state, there are other forms of "pressure" besides federal law that could cause neighboring states to "tighten up" collectively.

In our country cooperation rather than force/extortion is the mantra. That's a good thing.

Keep the laws at the state level but have a national standard or criminals will just transport across state lines. DC is a good example. The y can drive for 5 minutes and buy a handgun, without a background check, from a private party in Virginia. What good are DC laws then?

I am TRULY sympathetic to this reasoning. To me it's the most compelling reasoning in this whole debate! So, HOW to make it a reality without the feds violating states' rights?

First, the feds must agree that there will be NO federal registry of gun owners, NO federal record of guns themselves, and NO extortion or "encouragement" of the states to "voluntarily" produce such information.

Second, as in Colorado, the background checks must be "fire and forget," point-in-time, checks. The check is done, and it is then forgotten (some counties maintain a record, but state law precludes them from releasing that record to any external agency, including the state itself). There is no ongoing record of guns nor their owners, and no record "percolates up." The check is DONE, point in time, and then it's over.

Third, I'm all for sweeping background checks; I mean everywhere and for every gun-transfer transaction. And even private party transactions can be background-checked. Here's just one idea:

A person wanting to buy or trade or be gifted a private party gun must have the background check done, get a certificate of compliance produced, and give that certificate to the person releasing the firearm. That should be kept on record like taxes for, say, five or seven years.

Then, if the gun IS used in a crime, and it can be traced back to that particular transaction (it's possible, even without a kept record), the seller/gifter had BETTER be able to produce that compliance certificate along with the bill of sale.

Things like laws requiring guns to be locked up at all times they are not "in use" are very problematical. I have yet to hear a suggestion that makes the gun truly accessible when needed on short notice, while also "ensuring" it is kept out of the hands of kids and people like Adam Lanza.

I think that a law would have to look something like a prima facie speed law: "You can't ever legally drive faster than is safe for the conditions." So, something like, "You must always handle and store your gun in a way that keeps it out of the hands of people that should not have it."

A major upside to an approach like that is that it keeps the burden of proof on the government in prosecution, where it should be! Another upside is that it is indeed a prosecuteable offense. Finally, it takes into account the fact that people's circumstances vary.

I'm all FOR having a productive conversation about laws that would be reasonable, non-odious to the vast majority of gun owners, and that do not vest the feds with yet more power they don't know what to do with.

More ideas?

StahlBro

Trad climber
San Diego, CA
Jul 15, 2014 - 02:41pm PT
Really? Which developed countries murder rate does it resemble?

Credit: StahlBro
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jul 15, 2014 - 02:57pm PT
Are you REALLY trotting out that chart again?

Puhhhleeeaaase!!!
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
Maestro, Ecosystem Ministry, Fatcrackistan
Jul 15, 2014 - 03:01pm PT
You're BACK to that ANNOYING HABIT of SHOUTING WORDS.

Stand back and look your last diatribe. Don't read it... look at it as if you were seeing you for the first time. Like what you see?

I don't think you can help yourself though.

DMT
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jul 15, 2014 - 03:19pm PT
You're BACK to that ANNOYING HABIT of SHOUTING WORDS.

I NEVER STOPPED! So I can't be "back" to it.

LOL

How about we get back to business, which is to agree on some laws that might satisfy ALL parties?

Or would you rather just keep posturing and engaging in your own version of forum drive-by-shootings? You're "back" to those also.
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
Maestro, Ecosystem Ministry, Fatcrackistan
Jul 15, 2014 - 03:22pm PT
I'm not nearly as impressed with your word blizzards as you. Enjoy.

I'll snipe when I want. 2nd amendment don't you know.

DON'T SHOOT ME MAN!!!!!!!1111111

DMT
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jul 15, 2014 - 03:29pm PT
I'm not nearly as impressed with your word blizzards as you.

Not much of an attention span, from all I've seen of you.

Sniping is so much easier, and more cowardly, than engaging face to face. Problem is that the word "sniping" implies being on target with precision. You're patting yourself on the back more than you're due to use that term.

And attention spans like yours are why we elect presidents now on sound bites. Americans virtually cannot follow a systematic argument anymore.
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
Maestro, Ecosystem Ministry, Fatcrackistan
Jul 15, 2014 - 03:46pm PT
Sniping is so much easier, and more cowardly, than engaging face to face.

Ah yes. Says the man with the concealed pistol.

DMT
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jul 15, 2014 - 04:27pm PT
LOL... nope, thus far it's always been open.

I'm just an open and transparent guy.
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
Maestro, Ecosystem Ministry, Fatcrackistan
Jul 15, 2014 - 04:29pm PT
Ahhhhhhhh! Brevity!

Thank YOU!

DMT
StahlBro

Trad climber
San Diego, CA
Jul 15, 2014 - 04:31pm PT
So I guess you are admitting your statement here is pure bullsh*t. Now we are getting somewhere.

Jul 15, 2014 - 02:14pm PT

Finally our murder rate will resemble a civilized country's murder rate, not what we have now.

**It already does. So, job done.

Next....**Italic Text
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Jul 15, 2014 - 05:05pm PT
So I guess you are admitting your statement here is pure bullsh*t.

Nope, that chart is what is pure bullsh*t.

But that's irrelevant, except to folks that just want to keep on fighting about this.

I've already said that I'm open to reasonable, non-federally-anchored gun laws. And I've offered a few suggestions.

So far no takers on further developing that approach.

Guess you anti-gun-nuts just want to fight.

On the Internet, of course.
TradEddie

Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
Jul 15, 2014 - 05:36pm PT
More ideas?

Sure:

Call your State and Federal representatives explaining that you and a large majority of the population support something similar to what you've listed above. Ask them why they won't.

Vote against candidates that refuse to support such legislation.

Financially support and vote for candidates that will support it.

Stop suggesting that any such legislation will ultimately lead to confiscation of everyone's guns, followed by the announcement of martial law by the Federal Government.

TE




Messages 5561 - 5580 of total 5891 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