TTQ B4U Posted March 23, 2018 Report Share Posted March 23, 2018 First off, it's no secret that an eventual ban on all firearms is the end goal. Nobody is being coy in trying to hide that. So we are essentially comparing a ban to a ban. Seems pretty logical to me. agree 100%. the games and banter are entertaining but let's call it for what it is those that want a ban and those that don't. If Kerry is looking for something in the middle, and I believe him, then he and I are closer than he thinks. the media and the elites on the left however, have been of late, really pushing for an out-right ban though and it's clear to many of us. IMO not just around guns, but power in general, is why they are pushing so hard for immigration as I do absolutely believe they are out to change the population and demographics in order to regain control. That said, I rarely drink and couldn't care less if I never did again. Still, I wouldn't be for prohibition of alcohol because, again, I feel it falls back to personal responsibility. Same goes for firearms. I just don't get why the gun control crowd wouldn't be for further regulation of alcohol as well if their intentions truly are to save lives. the statement about personal responsiblity doesn't fit the narrative of people calling for gun regulation. that's even more clear to many. Kerry can hate on that all he wants as he deflects and tries to shift blame but he has already noted before including here in this thread around alcohol that many of the gains we've see are as a result of social attitudes and community programs....aka NOT guns and NOT Alcohol. Those two items are harmless when by themselves or in the hands of a RESPONSIBLE person. It's time to address the real problem which with the people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted March 23, 2018 Report Share Posted March 23, 2018 (edited) First off, it's no secret that an eventual ban on all firearms is the end goal. Nobody is being coy in trying to hide that. So we are essentially comparing a ban to a ban. Seems pretty logical to me. Because you are crazy and afraid. Ok. got it. Ban isn't going to happen, Supreme court has said it, even the most liberal politicians have said it, the law doesn't support it, and it would take a constitutional amendment to even start to make that happen - and even if it did, there are enough conservatives in power in the courts that would interpret it away from a ban anyway. The only people I really hear talking about a ban like it is realistic are NRA disciples who are fear mongering that "they are coming for your guns", to drum up support. Sure there are dipshit liberal extremists that shout it occasionally, but most of them aren't in power and can't get their shit together like the NRA. Which raises the question "end goal for whom?". From my standpoint, the overwhelming majority's end goal is to just get some form or progress in place in the form or reasonable and common sense gun control. The people that are talking about an outright ban as a serious solution are fringe, and small, and not realistic or using fear tactics to drum up support for their position. Global Nuclear fucking war will happen before this country sees a ban on firearms, so slow your roll there Cochise. Now, being that I work in the 4th busiest high acuity intensive care unit in the entire country, I've seen more death than either you or your statistics can possibly imagine. I see what contributes to the deaths of people on a daily basis. Go read that in a study somewhere if it makes you feel educated on the subject. ok, so your emotional feelings in doing a job (which is clearly having a toll on your mental health) is more important and more credible than the reported experience of everyone like you nationwide? no wonder you think a ban is plausible. Do you think studies happen in a vacuum? they do not. I'm sure you have even been part of them and had your chance to tell your story and probably didn't even realize it or notice. And it all becomes part of the narrative. But you don't speak for the whole of the industry and the numbers don't lie. I am not denigrating your experience (even though it looks like that in the preceeding paragraph), I am sure you feel this way and you have every right to feel the way you do. However, your single experience does not make you an expert on the whole of a problem that exists beyond your industry and is only one small piece of a much larger puzzle, it ain't the whole puzzle. I also can't help but think that the proposed goal (though I think the gun control crowd really doesn't give an actual shit about) is to decrease the loss of life. If that's truly your goal as you guys claim it is, then alcohol is well within the realm of discussion. Ok, if alcohol is in the realm of discussion then it is the model for control. It is a regulated substance, and because of controls the rates of a negative outcome associated with it have plummeted. Sure alcohol deaths are still higher than gun deaths in this country but alcohol use is far and away more widespread and accessible, and you know what, progress in reducing the harm on that front hasn't slowed at all. Because there is progress being made in an incremental and cautious manner and at all levels of the government - it really isn't a hot button issue in politics anymore. Police are constantly improving techniques to address drunk driving, health care is improving to help treat those suffering the affects, government funding is going to treatment programs (although under republican administrations those sometimes get cut so maybe don't vote for those people), new scientific development is coming out all the time toward treatment, new laws are coming out as to the standards and labeling at the federal level, etc....you get the idea? Working the problem from all sides and moving forward without a ban in sight. If you ask me what I believe, I am perfectly fine with alcohol control laws and I am perfectly fine with gun control laws. But then again, I am not stupid enough to believe that a ban on guns will actually happen so..... A ban on alcohol worked out horrifically. That alone has kept us from having a one again, and would probably have the same effect with guns - which is another reason why a ban is implausible. What purpose does alcohol serve? What possible benefit is there to society from it? I just had a good friend die of alcoholic cirrhosis. What good did it do him? I see the amount of trauma patients come thru the door that have alcohol in their systems. I'd wager its 2 out of every 3 that roll in our unit. It causes a severe increase in financial burden on our healthcare system, not to mention the loss of life it contributes to. Far more than firearms. So why can't we discuss it? Making a person wait until they are 21 doesn't seem to do a damn thing. You can have all the regulation, decline of alcoholism, community changes, etc. that you want; it still kills a fuck ton of people as well as drives up our cost of healthcare. Are you at a point in regulation with alcohol that the amount of deaths and injuries we incur because of it are acceptable to you? I think it's a valid question. No I am not, but then again progress in regulating alcohol and providing programs to help with that situation hasn't been halted like it has with guns. We are improving and we will continue to improve on that point, research is being done, new programs are popping up every day. We aren't getting anywhere with the other subject. My point from day one has been let's start up the research and support for getting some progress in this area going again. If you want to talk with one of those crazies that think a ban is plausible then I suggest you go out and find one, because I don't think there are any here. That said, I rarely drink and couldn't care less if I never did again. Still, I wouldn't be for prohibition of alcohol because, again, I feel it falls back to personal responsibility. Same goes for firearms. I just don't get why the gun control crowd wouldn't be for further regulation of alcohol as well if their intentions truly are to save lives. The reason you don't understand it is because: - you assume progress isn't still being made on alcohol as a controlled substance, which is false - you assume people in favor of gun control aren't in favor of alcohol regulation, which is also false - you have this set up as a one or the other proposition, which it is not - you can both regulate alcohol and regulate firearms, and do both without an outright ban being the goal. *I'm just picking on alcohol because I see so much of the damage it causes. I could pick any number of things that contribute to human loss of life and go after it just the same.* yeah with the number of incorrect assumptions you make I'm sure you could. would make about as much sense too. Edited March 23, 2018 by Geeto67 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRed05 Posted March 23, 2018 Report Share Posted March 23, 2018 he and I are closer than he thinks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory <3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted March 23, 2018 Report Share Posted March 23, 2018 (edited) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory <3 LOL not gonna lie, this movie sounds either awesome or like a spectacular train wreck: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_Theory Horseshoe Theory is the title of a 2017 romantic comedy short film by Jonathan Daniel Brown in which an Islamic State jihadist and a white supremacist meet following a weapons deal over the internet and fall in love after discovering how much they share in common. Edited March 23, 2018 by Geeto67 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted March 23, 2018 Report Share Posted March 23, 2018 If Kerry is looking for something in the middle, and I believe him, then he and I are closer than he thinks. The fundamental difference between you and me Tim, is that I recognize that this is a multifaceted problem with many factors including current gun regulations and you simply refuse to believe that the gun and the world surrounding it is part of the problem. It's a core tenant and one we probably won't ever agree on. I believe we should work the problem from all sides, and that regulation can work as an incentive toward people's behavior and you refuse to work the problem from all sides because in your mind the thing itself isn't part of the problem. You keep talking about meeting in the middle, but if you middle doesn't include some research and some sensible gun control laws, then you aren't interested in meeting in the middle and I am not interested in meeting you further than center. our closeness might as well be the length of the Sahara desert. Kerry can hate on that all he wants as he deflects and tries to shift blame but he has already noted before including here in this thread around alcohol that many of the gains we've see are as a result of social attitudes and community programs....aka NOT guns and NOT Alcohol. Those two items are harmless when by themselves or in the hands of a RESPONSIBLE person. Wow Tim, that is a gran canyon leap of logic. I said here in this thread specifically that research and controls laws played a significant part in the change in social attitudes and the development of community programs. I honestly genuinely want to call you retarded right now but I know you aren't, but I can't believe this mis-characterization isn't malicious. You beat me up all the time here on spin but this is beyond spin - either you didn't grasp what I was saying at all (hence retarded) or you are lying about what I said to make your point. I believe it is the latter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted March 23, 2018 Report Share Posted March 23, 2018 The fundamental difference between you and me Tim, is that I recognize that this is a multifaceted problem with many factors including current gun regulations and you simply refuse to believe that the gun and the world surrounding it is part of the problem. I've never said it wasn't a multifaceted problem. I just don't think the current state of regulations is the root-cause, nor is the root-cause a gun in general. It seems apparent that you don't see the root-cause as the person behind the gun and to the level you do agree they have a role in it, you deflect their blame to other things such as social situations, the economy, etc. I would agree that we won't probably ever see eye to eye the factors involved and to what degree they are responsible for a death by gun. I believe we should work the problem from all sides, and that regulation can work as an incentive toward people's behavior and you refuse to work the problem from all sides because in your mind the thing itself isn't part of the problem. I've never said I'm against regulation. I just don't support a regulation that infringes on rights as much as you're willing to do nor infringe on honest responsible gun owners when the problem has nothing to do with them. I want regulation and laws focused where it needs to be focused, not ones that impact the 99.9% of us that are not harming anyone with our guns. You keep talking about meeting in the middle, but if you middle doesn't include some research and some sensible gun control laws, then you aren't interested in meeting in the middle and I am not interested in meeting you further than center. our closeness might as well be the length of the Sahara desert.I think but could be wrong that we disagree on what we see as sensible. I'm not opposed to spending money, but it needs to be with clear purpose and a clear plan not a fishing expedition in hopes of finding something under a rock. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted March 23, 2018 Report Share Posted March 23, 2018 I've never said it wasn't a multifaceted problem. I just don't think the current state of regulations is the root-cause, nor is the root-cause a gun in general. It seems apparent that you don't see the root-cause as the person behind the gun and to the level you do agree they have a role in it, you deflect their blame to other things such as social situations, the economy, etc. I would agree that we won't probably ever see eye to eye the factors involved and to what degree they are responsible for a death by gun. Not true. One of the many functions of regulation is to influence of the individual behavior. Not every regulation/law is a prohibition, sometimes regulations are intentionally a hassle but still permit an activity to shake out those who are easily discouraged and those who are not. It's a model based on economics that's as old as time, and one that already exists in this space with waiting periods and similar laws. I have never said the person is not the problem, nor have I absolved them of any responsibility. If we agree that the person is at the heart of the problem, and a solution is in influencing in their behavior - then gun control regulations are just one tool in that arsenal. And research is an essential component to all of it. I've never said I'm against regulation. I just don't support a regulation that infringes on rights as much as you're willing to do nor infringe on honest responsible gun owners when the problem has nothing to do with them. I want regulation and laws focused where it needs to be focused, not ones that impact the 99.9% of us that are not harming anyone with our guns. Let's be clear. The constitution is not absolute. To treat it as absolute is to flat not understand the powers and limitations of the document itself or the government charged with executing on it. As long as it is not a ban, it is not infringing on the overall rights enumerated in 2A, any other interpretation is false. There is 200+ years of jurisprudence to back it up, including the Heller case. If you are not open to the idea that some of those laws and regulations need to be focused on gun control, then you are just not open to a solution to the problem. If you are so hellbent on it not affecting the rights of gun owners, then the other option was industry self policing. This is where the industry gets together and sets standards to personally address the problems outside government intervention. You see this plenty in other industries and hobbies and it often works at keeping people at bay. Unfortunately the general attitude of the industry is one of independence rather than collaboration where nobody wants to work in collective for the good of all and so it's left to the government to do. Honestly, this is what the NRA did for decades before 1977 (when the extremists took over), and you know what? it pretty much worked - guns and gun control was a non issue. Now I won't defend the pre-1977 NRA either because one of their reasons that led to the coup was their decision to back Governor Ronald Reagan's obviously racist gun control laws in the wake of the Black Panther's protests. But that's a different conversation for another time. I think but could be wrong that we disagree on what we see as sensible. I'm not opposed to spending money, but it needs to be with clear purpose and a clear plan not a fishing expedition in hopes of finding something under a rock. The fact that you think it is just a "fishing expedition" means you don't value research knowledge as a whole. I can't explain it any clearer. What we disagree on is the value of information. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted March 23, 2018 Report Share Posted March 23, 2018 And another big day for Trump's market. Maga. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
944s2 Posted March 24, 2018 Report Share Posted March 24, 2018 And another big day for Trump's market. Maga. I mean it went up way too fast and bullish. It's going to have some big drops, go down to a more sensible point and level off. I don't think he should be taking credit for the gains or drops at this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdk 4219 Posted March 24, 2018 Report Share Posted March 24, 2018 And another big day for Trump's market. Maga. You’re right Hillary Clinton clearly better. We haven’t been governed by common sense in my lifetime, hopefully some can find its way to the establishment in Washington. BTW it was because I told my wife not to vote for Hillary that she didn’t win. She was spot on Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BStowers023 Posted March 24, 2018 Report Share Posted March 24, 2018 So I guess there was a "March for our lives" protest today for gun control. I wonder if we took a poll what percentage of those people marching are okay with abortion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted March 24, 2018 Report Share Posted March 24, 2018 So I guess there was a "March for our lives" protest today for gun control. I wonder if we took a poll what percentage of those people marching are okay with abortion? they need to be marching outside the sheriff's office more than anything given all the balls dropped on the Florida shooting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted March 26, 2018 Report Share Posted March 26, 2018 So I guess there was a "March for our lives" protest today for gun control. I wonder if we took a poll what percentage of those people marching are okay with abortion? I wonder how many conservatives are dumb enough to fall for this kind of bogus moral relativism just because it shows some perceived hypocrisy of the other team rather than actually discuss the issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallard Posted March 26, 2018 Report Share Posted March 26, 2018 I mean it went up way too fast and bullish. It's going to have some big drops, go down to a more sensible point and level off. I don't think he should be taking credit for the gains or drops at this point.When the drops are because of tariffs and a trade war he's started, he should be taking the credit (blame). Sent from my SM-G925V using Tapatalk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BStowers023 Posted March 26, 2018 Report Share Posted March 26, 2018 I wonder how many conservatives are dumb enough to fall for this kind of bogus moral relativism just because it shows some perceived hypocrisy of the other team rather than actually discuss the issue. Well you won't listen to facts on gun violence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted March 26, 2018 Report Share Posted March 26, 2018 Well you won't listen to facts on gun violence. And the facts are? Remember there isn't research on gun violence so where do these "facts" come from? are they actually facts? or just some product of flawed logic that people accept as gospel. Please, enlighten me....what are the actual "facts" you think I won't listen to and their source? Also, since you are compressing abortion and gun violence down to the singular act of murder with your moral relativism - did you fire your weapon at another person while you were in the sandbox? If so and you killed them do you consider yourself a murderer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zeitgeist57 Posted March 26, 2018 Author Report Share Posted March 26, 2018 Also, since you are compressing abortion and gun violence down to the singular act of murder with your moral relativism - did you fire your weapon at another person while you were in the sandbox? If so and you killed them do you consider yourself a murderer? wat Only if that kid, 30-35 years later, is still in that sandbox playing dead. In which case, he deserves an Oscar for his commitment as an actor to his craft. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted March 26, 2018 Report Share Posted March 26, 2018 wat Only if that kid, 30-35 years later, is still in that sandbox playing dead. In which case, he deserves an Oscar for his commitment as an actor to his craft. Brandon is former military and has not hidden his time in the mid-east (I think he called himself a combat veteran in this thread at one point). By sandbox I meant the middle east conflict, not an actual sandbox on a playground. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRed05 Posted March 26, 2018 Report Share Posted March 26, 2018 If a baby gets aborted in a sandbox, but there's no one there to hear him...will he grow up to repeal the dickey amendment? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted March 26, 2018 Report Share Posted March 26, 2018 If I jerk off in a sandbox am I aborting millions of babies? Is it worth it if I breed just one sandman? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BStowers023 Posted March 26, 2018 Report Share Posted March 26, 2018 Also, since you are compressing abortion and gun violence down to the singular act of murder with your moral relativism - did you fire your weapon at another person while you were in the sandbox? If so and you killed them do you consider yourself a murderer? Thanks for showing how truly classy you are. You have great character, Kerry. Don't let anyone tell you differently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted March 26, 2018 Report Share Posted March 26, 2018 Thanks for showing how truly classy you are. You have great character, Kerry. Don't let anyone tell you differently. Are you going to answer the question or not? I mean, you are the one who seems to want to morally compress aborting and mass shootings together so let's not play delicate with the entire spectrum.....or are you willing to concede that the issues are more complex than you are making them out to be and bogus moral relativism is just that...bogus? Are you a murderer or not? why should you get quarter when you offer none to those protesting? What makes you special? Also, still waiting on those "Facts" you were going to school me on. Or at least tell me which ones I wasn't listening to. In case you are confused here is the definition of "Fact" Definition of fact 1 a : something that has actual existence space exploration is now a fact b : an actual occurrence prove the fact of damage 2 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality These are the hard facts of the case. 3 : the quality of being actual : actuality a question of fact hinges on evidence https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fact Still....waiting.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10phone2 Posted March 26, 2018 Report Share Posted March 26, 2018 (edited) Question for you. Is the local police required to protect it's citizens nationwide? Edited March 26, 2018 by 10phone2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BStowers023 Posted March 26, 2018 Report Share Posted March 26, 2018 Question for you. Is the local police required to protect it's citizens nationwide? Here you go, Kerry. Now let's wait for your infamous deflection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geeto67 Posted March 26, 2018 Report Share Posted March 26, 2018 Here you go, Kerry. Now let's wait for your infamous deflection. Whatever it is I'm nerd blocked from seeing it at work so you'll be waiting a long time. Still waiting for you to answer my previous questions. Even better I'll ask another - if you got sent to the sandbox by uncle sam as part of a mission to murder enemy combatants, and you didn't murder any are you incompetent at your job? or is it implied cowardice even if you just didn't get the opportunity? I mean, since we are talking about bullshit relativism tell me why I'm wrong. Question for you. Is the local police required to protect it's citizens nationwide? That depends on a few things: When you say local do you mean state or municipal? When you say Citizens do you mean citizens of the USA or citizens of the state and municipality? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.