Helpful ReplyHot!Trump 2024

Page: << < ..2627282930.. > >> Showing page 30 of 34
Author
JerryS
Expert Angler
  • Total Posts : 278
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2006/06/25 23:50:13
  • Location: N.W. PA
  • Status: offline
Re: Trump 2024 2024/02/20 15:13:45 (permalink)
 Removed due to conflicted information
post edited by JerryS - 2024/02/20 22:20:06
crappiefisher
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 3349
  • Reward points: 0
  • Status: offline
Re: Trump 2024 2024/02/20 16:03:25 (permalink)
psu_fish
crappiefisher
 Any of you guys ever go to a Turkey shoot?
 




Yes. They can be fun, some clubs will have divisions, and yes, some dudes spend big money on custom barrels to win a frozen bird. 


  I use to take my buddy to and from the ones at a American Legion about 15 minutes from home. Yeah the guys would have a great time and got pretty drunk doing so. Between rounds they had time for a quick shot and a beer. Mostly Rednecks a couple cops and a prison guard.
  It was crazy to see the guys with their new long barrels and fancy chokes every week. They could really get into it. I don't gamble so just wanted to make sure my friend got back and forth safe. He had way to many DUIs.
 
    https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/..._mortality/firearm.htm
pensfan1
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 3425
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2004/01/13 15:58:23
  • Status: offline
Re: Trump 2024 2024/02/20 16:11:53 (permalink)
DarDys
So, I got the expected responses to a factual statement and a simple question — a personal attack; a cognitive bias stereotype; and a dismissal of a basic definition based on emotion. This is typical of people who say they want to have a conversation, but instead want to lecture, without factual basis, and when confronted with an argument that they have no persuasive counterpoints to, resort to these tactics.

My occupation has nothing to do with the subject at hand any more than a response of “your Momma, poopy head, or go back to slicing cold cuts because you are full of bologna,” yet that was a personal attack because of not being able to construct a sensible retort.

The NRA comment is a projection of media driven stereotyping often used by those that need to paint an entire demographic rather than address a specific discussion point, quite often because no valid counterpoint is to be had. For the record, I am not currently, never have been, nor ever will be a NRA member, namely because of their stance on actual assault rifles, not the lookalikes. I do realize that those types of firearms appeal to some, just not me (full disclosure I have never fired even a semi lookalike and have no intention to do so, let alone the real deal), but I see no reason for the general public to own fully automatic firearms. If they want to go through the arduous process to get the tax stamp, because that is what it is, a tax stamp, not a license or permit, and can pass the criteria, then bully for them.

Please post when someone holding this level of tax stamp is involved in a shooting because it will be the first time.

The third response, which at least had some semblance of having a debate point solution, was at once the best response and the worst response. It was the best response in the sense that it went beyond the superficial to actually propose something (debated later), but that was far outweighed by the worst part of the response which was dismissing out of hand settling on a basic definition under the logic of “I don’t care” followed by childish writing meant to demean the original statement.

If one truly wants to have a debate, discussion, conversation on any subject — gun control, immigration, fossil fuels, sports — that needs to start with defining the basic terms. When one party refuses to acknowledge a simple definition, then there can be no back and forth because it is a one way telling, not a fact based exchange.

But, to look at the proposal, it can be characterized as “feel good” legislation on one hand and “a solution looking for a problem” on the other.

To state the obvious, no juvenile can purchase a gun legally now, yet the KC shooting involved two juveniles. In other words, they broke the law already on the books, yet the answer is to put another similar law on the books so that maybe those intent on doing harm might follow the new law?

Adding mental health checks in order to buy a gun, the having those checks be reapplied on an annual or semi-annual basis falls on four fronts — 1) criminals won’t be lining up to see the mental health specialist; 2) there are approximately 83 million legal gun owners in the US making this logistically impossible; 3) several of the latest mass shootings were conducted by those that already had a negative mental health diagnosis, yet illegally acquired a gun, so ineffectual as well, and 4) opens the door to a complete nanny state control. As an example, if annual or bi-annual mental health checks would be required for gun ownership, based on the number of deaths in mass shooting (75 by 12/6 in 2023), then would it not be reasonable to require breathalyzer ignition interlocks on all vehicles in the US because there were over 13,000 drunk driving deaths in the same time period?

With regard to no-questions-asked gun buy backs, this has been around for years in several cities, so the data is available. Please post when one functional AR platform has been bought back and taken off the street because it will be the first time. Pro gun people will not sell their firearms to these programs because, aside from wanting to keep their guns, the programs pay nowhere near the value of the gun. Criminals will not sell their firearms to these programs because they are the tools if their trade — can’t rob, gang bang for territory, protect the drug money, or, as in KC, settle “a personal dispute” (that’s what the MSM called it).

What is turned in are broken, old, no longer wanted (often by someone related to a now deceased owner) guns that are not involved in any criminal activity. Because there is an actual track record for the cities that have engaged in these programs it is fairly easy to ascertain that they have been ineffective in reducing violent crime in said same cities.

To end, because I expect nothing in the way of counterpoints, just more of the usual retorts, I have no answer either other than to start with the component other than the inanimate object that can do nothing without the shooter. Use a gun in any crime, 50 years, no plea bargaining down to a lesser crime, no possibility of parole, second offense automatic life sentence. There has to be a human disincentive and not applying the 20,000 gun laws on the books already doesn’t accomplish that. Neither will a new one.


Let's talk about lecturing🙄. Thanks Professor. I am kinda disappointed though... not one bar graph or pie chart. Oh well, maybe next time.
post edited by pensfan1 - 2024/02/20 16:26:11
pensfan1
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 3425
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2004/01/13 15:58:23
  • Status: offline
Re: Trump 2024 2024/02/20 16:15:13 (permalink)
And no MW, none of the 2A worshippers will ever admit that.
snagr
Expert Angler
  • Total Posts : 503
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2020/06/23 12:24:34
  • Status: offline
Re: Trump 2024 2024/02/20 17:23:00 (permalink) ☄ Helpfulby fishin coyote 2024/02/20 20:25:52
Why’s it so hard for some of yinz to discuss a topic without building straw men and resorting to name calling?

Mental illness comes up about 100% of the time on here in discussions about guns. What has changed in America in the last 30 years about how we treat mental illness?

Read about SSRI’s like Prozac. Besides the fact that they mostly numb you and don’t cure you, some of their most alarming side effects are that they cause suicidal and homicidal ideation, and cause mental illnesses and psychoses to become worse, especially in teens and young adults.

Between 1998 and 2018 in the US, the use of them tripled.

Couple times on here I’ve seen some of you comment about how much different pot is today than it was back in the day. Dunno myself since I’ve never touched the stuff. There is definitely correlation that the mental health and medical community widely acknowledges now between pot use and psychosis in teens and young adults in the last ten years. Very few of them will say that it’s causative, but the correlation is absolutely there.

People with psychosis are more prone to violence.

So no, my anecdotes about kids bringing guns to school weren’t pining for the good old days necessarily. It was simply in response to the post that started this flurry saying guns are the problem.

Think critically and do a little reading and understand some of the cultural changes in regards to mental health that have happened in the last 20 years and maybe you’ll have a little better understanding of why our culture seems so much more violent than it used to.

I don’t own any semi auto rifles so I’ve got no skin in the game on whether citizens can own em or not. No desire to get one. Don’t see a need for me to own one. Have shot a few owned by friends and it didn’t really move the needle for me. Would rather chase critters than punch holes in paper. Couldn’t afford all that ammo anyway.

I’ve never been an NRA member and don’t really pay attention to what they say.

Just an average guy who does my best to think critically about things happening in the world around me by educating myself about things that matter to me.
post edited by snagr - 2024/02/20 17:25:04
pensfan1
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 3425
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2004/01/13 15:58:23
  • Status: offline
Re: Trump 2024 2024/02/20 20:51:24 (permalink)
Its offical!!!! tRump=worst President ever according to presidential historian scholars. 🤯shocking 🙄 not really though 😆.
JerryS
Expert Angler
  • Total Posts : 278
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2006/06/25 23:50:13
  • Location: N.W. PA
  • Status: offline
Re: Trump 2024 2024/02/20 21:31:41 (permalink)
snagr
 
Just an average guy who does my best to think critically about things happening in the world around me by educating myself about things that matter to me.



Then why do you ignore some obvious facts?
States with lax gun laws have higher gun violence rates
States with strong gun laws are hampered by neighboring states with lax gun laws
More guns is not the answer.  If it was, the US would have the lowest gun violence worldwide, not one of the highest.
 
As you have stated in the past, the vast majority of US gun deaths are inner city related (gang bangers, drug trade, etc..), while mass shootings are a very small percentage.  I'm guessing the public doesn't really care about bad guys shooting each other.  Their focus is on the mass shooters killing kids, which, as you state, is almost always a mentally ill individual. 
 
These mentally ill individuals are not street-smart thugs that are capable of getting their gun from the black market.  Their gun is obtained thru the retail market by themselves or more likely an irresponsible family member.
 
It boils down to two things:  Guns are too easy to obtain in our country and a large swath of our population are not responsible enough to be a gun owner (how often do we hear about handguns during road rage).   How do we correct this?  There has to be some compromise between the two sides of this argument. 
post edited by JerryS - 2024/02/20 22:42:47
MyWar
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 1939
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2018/06/03 06:54:05
  • Status: online
Re: Trump 2024 2024/02/21 00:21:56 (permalink)
snagr
Why’s it so hard for some of yinz to discuss a topic without building straw men and resorting to name calling?

Mental illness comes up about 100% of the time on here in discussions about guns. What has changed in America in the last 30 years about how we treat mental illness?

Read about SSRI’s like Prozac. Besides the fact that they mostly numb you and don’t cure you, some of their most alarming side effects are that they cause suicidal and homicidal ideation, and cause mental illnesses and psychoses to become worse, especially in teens and young adults.

Between 1998 and 2018 in the US, the use of them tripled.

Couple times on here I’ve seen some of you comment about how much different pot is today than it was back in the day. Dunno myself since I’ve never touched the stuff. There is definitely correlation that the mental health and medical community widely acknowledges now between pot use and psychosis in teens and young adults in the last ten years. Very few of them will say that it’s causative, but the correlation is absolutely there.

People with psychosis are more prone to violence.

So no, my anecdotes about kids bringing guns to school weren’t pining for the good old days necessarily. It was simply in response to the post that started this flurry saying guns are the problem.

Think critically and do a little reading and understand some of the cultural changes in regards to mental health that have happened in the last 20 years and maybe you’ll have a little better understanding of why our culture seems so much more violent than it used to.

I don’t own any semi auto rifles so I’ve got no skin in the game on whether citizens can own em or not. No desire to get one. Don’t see a need for me to own one. Have shot a few owned by friends and it didn’t really move the needle for me. Would rather chase critters than punch holes in paper. Couldn’t afford all that ammo anyway.

I’ve never been an NRA member and don’t really pay attention to what they say.

Just an average guy who does my best to think critically about things happening in the world around me by educating myself about things that matter to me.



Here is me thinking critically:

Which is the more likely major contributing factor to US gun violence:

1) increase in SSRIs?
2) strong pot?
3) the number of guns per capita has increased to 120 guns per 100 people, and gun manufacturing and gun sales have increased at almost an exponential rate in the last 20 years?

What kind of reasonable “critical thinking” would lead somebody to believe that mass shootings are caused by pot and lexapro instead of the fact that we have a CRAZY number of guns in this country and as a result it’s just WAY too easy to get one?
MyWar
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 1939
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2018/06/03 06:54:05
  • Status: online
Re: Trump 2024 2024/02/21 00:32:45 (permalink)
snagr

Think critically and do a little reading and understand some of the cultural changes in regards to mental health that have happened in the last 20 years and maybe you’ll have a little better understanding of why our culture seems so much more violent than it used to.



Here’s another hole in that logic

Do they have weed and SSRIs in Canada? Australia? Europe? Japan? Why don't those countries see the same rates of gun violence that we do in the US? Or did you not know that they don’t (and it’s not even close)?

Also, do SSRIs make you numb? Or do they turn people into homicidal maniacs? Or are you arguing that they do both or …?
crappiefisher
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 3349
  • Reward points: 0
  • Status: offline
Re: Trump 2024 2024/02/21 13:04:29 (permalink)
  This doesn't make more guns (out there) but just spreads them out. Which is nothing anyone can do or should.
 
  When a gun collector (black guns, sporting or hand guns) passes away the best way for the inheritor to deal with them is through a auction. So now instead of one person owning 100-- 300 +++ guns they are distributed to many. Same amount of guns though.
 
 Happens many times a day.
post edited by crappiefisher - 2024/02/21 13:24:28
CTKsnowman
Avid Angler
  • Total Posts : 134
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2020/04/27 14:23:39
  • Location: PA
  • Status: offline
Re: Trump 2024 2024/02/21 15:26:57 (permalink)
I would rather see aggressive enforcement, and prosecution for law violations already on the books. The National Firearms act has been in place since 1934, last night I saw several videos of teenagers in Chicago with full auto switches on their Glocks. Those kids were not 35 years old and I will wager a years salary they didn't fill out a form 4 with the ATF before purchase. 

A legit solution would be to have congress amend all the current gun laws verbiage from "up to" to "mandatory minimum" and then add ten additional years to the sentence.

That's my two cent's.  



Our society stigmatizes the mentally ill... and rightfully so, these people are nuts!
- Dale Gribble
Irisheyeball
Expert Angler
  • Total Posts : 466
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2011/09/29 10:06:45
  • Location: Sewickley, PA
  • Status: offline
Re: Trump 2024 2024/02/21 18:53:23 (permalink)
pensfan1
Its offical!!!! tRump=worst President ever according to presidential historian scholars. 🤯shocking 🙄 not really though 😆.

I'm surprised he did that well.
eyesandgillz
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 4011
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2003/06/18 11:30:03
  • Status: offline
Re: Trump 2024 2024/02/21 19:26:08 (permalink)
Everyone in the us should be required to own and learn how to use a firearm safely.   
Porktown
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 9686
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2001/09/04 16:37:05
  • Status: online
Re: Trump 2024 2024/02/21 20:48:40 (permalink)
CTKsnowman

A legit solution would be to have congress amend all the current gun laws verbiage from "up to" to "mandatory minimum" and then add ten additional years to the sentence.

That's my two cent's.  



I think this would go a long way. Especially after time. Although, I would bet there would be a huge stink from the NRA and their political echo chamber of “what is the difference of gun or car” arguments. This would likely put a few hundred/thousand NRA members in danger of mandatory sentences for gun crimes if for all gun crimes. If you are referring to violent gun crimes only having this, then likely a bit more support, but likely still a roadblock in Congress. They clearly are there to obstruct the other party, regardless of the issue. Neither can allow a win for the country if the other party gets any sort of credit.

What you noted and more parents being held criminally responsible like the mother that was just convicted. If you buy for a minor or other, you are responsible for the safe use. If not, then you don’t buy.
MyWar
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 1939
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2018/06/03 06:54:05
  • Status: online
Re: Trump 2024 2024/02/21 21:49:41 (permalink)
Porktown
CTKsnowman

A legit solution would be to have congress amend all the current gun laws verbiage from "up to" to "mandatory minimum" and then add ten additional years to the sentence.

That's my two cent's.  



I think this would go a long way. Especially after time. Although, I would bet there would be a huge stink from the NRA and their political echo chamber of “what is the difference of gun or car” arguments. This would likely put a few hundred/thousand NRA members in danger of mandatory sentences for gun crimes if for all gun crimes. If you are referring to violent gun crimes only having this, then likely a bit more support, but likely still a roadblock in Congress. They clearly are there to obstruct the other party, regardless of the issue. Neither can allow a win for the country if the other party gets any sort of credit.

What you noted and more parents being held criminally responsible like the mother that was just convicted. If you buy for a minor or other, you are responsible for the safe use. If not, then you don’t buy.


Name 5 R senators that would support any kind of gun restrictions.

And you’ll probably need more, like closer to 8 to actually pass anything.

In reality you might get 2 or 3.

Republicans in congress will never allow it. Nothing will ever pass the senate. Unless somebody nukes the filibuster in which case all bets are off.
DeadGator401
Expert Angler
  • Total Posts : 907
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2013/07/17 22:42:40
  • Status: offline
Re: Trump 2024 2024/02/22 00:40:13 (permalink)
DarDys
So, I got the expected responses to a factual statement and a simple question — a personal attack; a cognitive bias stereotype; and a dismissal of a basic definition based on emotion. This is typical of people who say they want to have a conversation, but instead want to lecture, without factual basis, and when confronted with an argument that they have no persuasive counterpoints to, resort to these tactics.

My occupation has nothing to do with the subject at hand any more than a response of “your Momma, poopy head, or go back to slicing cold cuts because you are full of bologna,” yet that was a personal attack because of not being able to construct a sensible retort.

The NRA comment is a projection of media driven stereotyping often used by those that need to paint an entire demographic rather than address a specific discussion point, quite often because no valid counterpoint is to be had. For the record, I am not currently, never have been, nor ever will be a NRA member, namely because of their stance on actual assault rifles, not the lookalikes. I do realize that those types of firearms appeal to some, just not me (full disclosure I have never fired even a semi lookalike and have no intention to do so, let alone the real deal), but I see no reason for the general public to own fully automatic firearms. If they want to go through the arduous process to get the tax stamp, because that is what it is, a tax stamp, not a license or permit, and can pass the criteria, then bully for them.

Please post when someone holding this level of tax stamp is involved in a shooting because it will be the first time.

The third response, which at least had some semblance of having a debate point solution, was at once the best response and the worst response. It was the best response in the sense that it went beyond the superficial to actually propose something (debated later), but that was far outweighed by the worst part of the response which was dismissing out of hand settling on a basic definition under the logic of “I don’t care” followed by childish writing meant to demean the original statement.

If one truly wants to have a debate, discussion, conversation on any subject — gun control, immigration, fossil fuels, sports — that needs to start with defining the basic terms. When one party refuses to acknowledge a simple definition, then there can be no back and forth because it is a one way telling, not a fact based exchange.

But, to look at the proposal, it can be characterized as “feel good” legislation on one hand and “a solution looking for a problem” on the other.

To state the obvious, no juvenile can purchase a gun legally now, yet the KC shooting involved two juveniles. In other words, they broke the law already on the books, yet the answer is to put another similar law on the books so that maybe those intent on doing harm might follow the new law?

Adding mental health checks in order to buy a gun, the having those checks be reapplied on an annual or semi-annual basis falls on four fronts — 1) criminals won’t be lining up to see the mental health specialist; 2) there are approximately 83 million legal gun owners in the US making this logistically impossible; 3) several of the latest mass shootings were conducted by those that already had a negative mental health diagnosis, yet illegally acquired a gun, so ineffectual as well, and 4) opens the door to a complete nanny state control. As an example, if annual or bi-annual mental health checks would be required for gun ownership, based on the number of deaths in mass shooting (75 by 12/6 in 2023), then would it not be reasonable to require breathalyzer ignition interlocks on all vehicles in the US because there were over 13,000 drunk driving deaths in the same time period?

With regard to no-questions-asked gun buy backs, this has been around for years in several cities, so the data is available. Please post when one functional AR platform has been bought back and taken off the street because it will be the first time. Pro gun people will not sell their firearms to these programs because, aside from wanting to keep their guns, the programs pay nowhere near the value of the gun. Criminals will not sell their firearms to these programs because they are the tools if their trade — can’t rob, gang bang for territory, protect the drug money, or, as in KC, settle “a personal dispute” (that’s what the MSM called it).

What is turned in are broken, old, no longer wanted (often by someone related to a now deceased owner) guns that are not involved in any criminal activity. Because there is an actual track record for the cities that have engaged in these programs it is fairly easy to ascertain that they have been ineffective in reducing violent crime in said same cities.

To end, because I expect nothing in the way of counterpoints, just more of the usual retorts, I have no answer either other than to start with the component other than the inanimate object that can do nothing without the shooter. Use a gun in any crime, 50 years, no plea bargaining down to a lesser crime, no possibility of parole, second offense automatic life sentence. There has to be a human disincentive and not applying the 20,000 gun laws on the books already doesn’t accomplish that. Neither will a new one.


Let's get this out of the way first - you showed up, and many valid and good points, but your presentation is poor. You essentially walked into the room and told everyone your rules of discussion and debate. We've all been in those situations, when that one guy shows up to the bar, or game, or picnic and starts rattling off abc about xyz, and stares at people, hoping they'll come back with something, likely waiting to defer to the made up rules of engagement they presented earlier. It's not often well received, and is generally viewed as poor form.
 
I always enjoy your posts. You're passionate, and they often read as if you're doing a class lecture, which is not a negative by the way. They read like articles and are easy to consume.
(Only fair to point out though, you speak on how others want to lecture, then went into an entire lecture yourself.)

I'm not sure who spoke on your occupation. I don't know what you do, or why it matters. I hope you're retired and living the good life.

You spoke on emotions and how they invalidate the beginnings of debate essentially, and how important it is to have definitions agreed upon. Was "Call of Duty Guns" not something that you can agree upon? I bet multiple posters on here knew exactly what I was referring to, and would agree. (Correct me if I'm wrong). 

You also left out a big point - I said it's about mitigation; the guns are endemic.
When I go to the beach, and I get my entire feet bit off by those no-see-ums or fleas or whatever they are, I don't not put on bug spray because some bit me. I try to mitigate the issue. I try to lessen the damage. No one sits there and tells me how the bug spray is actually worthless because I still got bit. 

Your point about gun current buyback programs not working, or being ineffective is fair. I think they should raise the money offered based on age, and weapon capabilities. 
It's also very difficult to quantify crimes that didn't happen because of a gun no longer being on the street. 

And for this - "Use a gun in any crime, 50 years, no plea bargaining down to a lesser crime, no possibility of parole, second offense automatic life sentence. There has to be a human disincentive and not applying the 20,000 gun laws on the books already doesn’t accomplish that. Neither will a new one."
I almost agree, but this would have to be defined better, but I like the train of thought. Firm hand. 

And to be clear - I don't care about the opinions of those who very clearly value their hobby over human lives. You can call this childish if you wish, but that doesn't make the statements go away. I think you may have taken this personally, as the beginnings of your post have you seemingly immediately on the defensive. I can say this, I've seen and read your posts for years, I don't include you in that group. 

Also - thank god we're not discussing Chris Collinsworth anymore holy moly







DeadGator401
Expert Angler
  • Total Posts : 907
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2013/07/17 22:42:40
  • Status: offline
Re: Trump 2024 2024/02/22 00:43:28 (permalink)
MyWar
snagr

Think critically and do a little reading and understand some of the cultural changes in regards to mental health that have happened in the last 20 years and maybe you’ll have a little better understanding of why our culture seems so much more violent than it used to.



Here’s another hole in that logic

Do they have weed and SSRIs in Canada? Australia? Europe? Japan? Why don't those countries see the same rates of gun violence that we do in the US? Or did you not know that they don’t (and it’s not even close)?

Also, do SSRIs make you numb? Or do they turn people into homicidal maniacs? Or are you arguing that they do both or …?


Solid point. It's only the US that has this problem. 
CTKsnowman
I would rather see aggressive enforcement, and prosecution for law violations already on the books. The National Firearms act has been in place since 1934, last night I saw several videos of teenagers in Chicago with full auto switches on their Glocks. Those kids were not 35 years old and I will wager a years salary they didn't fill out a form 4 with the ATF before purchase. 

A legit solution would be to have congress amend all the current gun laws verbiage from "up to" to "mandatory minimum" and then add ten additional years to the sentence.

That's my two cent's.  





Best post on the topic so far. 



JerryS
Expert Angler
  • Total Posts : 278
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2006/06/25 23:50:13
  • Location: N.W. PA
  • Status: offline
Re: Trump 2024 2024/02/22 10:15:41 (permalink)
DeadGator401

 
CTKsnowman
I would rather see aggressive enforcement, and prosecution for law violations already on the books. The National Firearms act has been in place since 1934, last night I saw several videos of teenagers in Chicago with full auto switches on their Glocks. Those kids were not 35 years old and I will wager a years salary they didn't fill out a form 4 with the ATF before purchase. 

A legit solution would be to have congress amend all the current gun laws verbiage from "up to" to "mandatory minimum" and then add ten additional years to the sentence.

That's my two cent's.  





Best post on the topic so far. 







Sorry, "just enforce the current gun laws" is more NRA propaganda. You can make them mandatory death sentence, but they are useless without the manpower to enforce them.

Only the ATF can enforce Federal gun laws. It is no secret that the GOP does not want current gun laws enforced. For decades they have fought any increase in ATF funding, and have even sponsored many bills to eliminate the ATF. They have enacted laws banning resources from other gov't agencies (FBI, etc..) from helping ATF enforcement. This is all due to NRA lobbying.

Due to the limited number of field agents (about 2500 across 50 states), the ATF relies on state and local police departments to help enforce Federal gun laws. Thanks again to NRA lobbying, many GOP states (one source states 16) have enacted laws that forbids state and local police from working with the ATF.
CTKsnowman
Avid Angler
  • Total Posts : 134
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2020/04/27 14:23:39
  • Location: PA
  • Status: offline
Re: Trump 2024 2024/02/22 11:40:23 (permalink)
JerryS
 
 
Sorry, "just enforce the current gun laws" is more NRA propaganda. You can make them mandatory death sentence, but they are useless without the manpower to enforce them.
 


Firstly, it's important to recognize that dismissing the call to enforce existing gun laws as mere propaganda overlooks the genuine need for effective law enforcement in addressing gun violence. While the NRA may advocate for various positions, the principle of enforcing existing laws is not inherently tied to any particular organization's agenda. Instead, it reflects a fundamental aspect of governance and public safety.

Secondly, the assertion that enforcing current gun laws is futile without adequate manpower overlooks the potential effectiveness of targeted enforcement strategies. It's true that manpower is crucial for effective enforcement, but it's not the sole determinant of success. Utilizing resources efficiently, focusing on high-risk areas and individuals, and employing technology can significantly enhance enforcement efforts without necessarily requiring a massive increase in manpower.

JerryS
Only the ATF can enforce Federal gun laws. It is no secret that the GOP does not want current gun laws enforced. For decades they have fought any increase in ATF funding, and have even sponsored many bills to eliminate the ATF. They have enacted laws banning resources from other gov't agencies (FBI, etc..) from helping ATF enforcement. This is all due to NRA lobbying.

Due to the limited number of field agents (about 2500 across 50 states), the ATF relies on state and local police departments to help enforce Federal gun laws. Thanks again to NRA lobbying, many GOP states (one source states 16) have enacted laws that forbids state and local police from working with the ATF.




While it's true that the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) plays a significant role in enforcing federal gun laws, it's inaccurate and unfair to attribute the enforcement of these laws solely to one agency.

While the ATF is a federal agency tasked with enforcing federal gun laws, it's not the sole entity responsible. Various law enforcement agencies at federal, state, and local levels play roles in enforcing these laws. For instance, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) also has jurisdiction over certain aspects of firearms-related crimes. Furthermore, state and local law enforcement agencies often collaborate with federal authorities on these matters.

Painting the issue of enforcing gun laws as solely a Republican opposition misrepresents the complexity of political attitudes toward gun regulation. Both major political parties have diverse viewpoints on gun legislation, with individuals on both sides advocating for different approaches. There are Republicans who support stricter enforcement of existing gun laws, just as there are Democrats who may advocate for more leniency.

Lastly while I realizes you are passionate about your position there are two things you need to know about me going forward.

1. I have never supported the NRA, I am not a shill for their propaganda. 
2. I worked in law enforcement for 5 years. I have enforced gun laws at the state and federal level on multiple occasions. 



Our society stigmatizes the mentally ill... and rightfully so, these people are nuts!
- Dale Gribble
Porktown
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 9686
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2001/09/04 16:37:05
  • Status: online
Re: Trump 2024 2024/02/22 12:47:12 (permalink) ☄ Helpfulby crappiefisher 2024/02/22 13:44:10
Not to stray away from the gun debate.  How about that Chris Collinsworth guy?  
 
A quick search says there are at least 600k-1M frozen embryos in the US.  I personally think we should round up every couple that puts their baby in a freezer.  That is just cruel.  We should probably go back and research every mother in this country as well.  See if any may have drank a glass of wine, smoked a cigarette or lived with a husband that smoked near her or ate too many grams of saturated fat while pregnant and charge them with attempted murder.
MyWar
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 1939
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2018/06/03 06:54:05
  • Status: online
Re: Trump 2024 2024/02/22 13:16:48 (permalink)
CTKsnowman


Painting the issue of enforcing gun laws as solely a Republican opposition misrepresents the complexity of political attitudes toward gun regulation. Both major political parties have diverse viewpoints on gun legislation, with individuals on both sides advocating for different approaches. There are Republicans who support stricter enforcement of existing gun laws, just as there are Democrats who may advocate for more leniency.



A couple things here

1- your original post did suggest amending legislation. That requires congress to pass something. So then are you telling me that in this political environment you could realistically see enough congressional republican support to pass any legislation that would have even the slightest appearance of increased regulation of firearms? Because I do not. Nothing will get past a filibuster proof majority in the senate. That is my firm belief.

2- your point regarding the ATF is taken, but republicans are attacking the FBI too. In fact all the three letter federal intelligence and enforcement agencies are part of the “deep state” now. And again, congressional republicans are doing everything they can to undermine and de-legitimize them rhetorically, while under funding them legislatively.

3- many of these high profile mass shootings are committed by people who obtained guns legally. So I’m not sure I understand how better enforcement of existing laws would make a difference.

Like it or not, this is very much is a deeply partisan political issue now in 2024. And it is really just a deliberate attempt to manipulate conservative voters using classic rhetoric of agitation and scare mongering. And then if a Republican lawmaker shows even the slightest weakness on an issue like this, they face the threat of getting primaried by some opportunist who is willing to out crazy them from the right.

This isn’t a “both sides” thing either, because nobody votes for democrats because democrats want more firearm regs. Conversely though, there are a TON of single issue 2A republican voters out there. And to be honest, as a democrat I would almost prefer that democrats just give up on this because it’s a losing issue for them and it’s costing them elections.
post edited by MyWar - 2024/02/22 13:18:11
pensfan1
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 3425
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2004/01/13 15:58:23
  • Status: offline
Re: Trump 2024 2024/02/22 17:49:08 (permalink)
Porktown
Not to stray away from the gun debate.  How about that Chris Collinsworth guy?  
 
A quick search says there are at least 600k-1M frozen embryos in the US.  I personally think we should round up every couple that puts their baby in a freezer.  That is just cruel.  We should probably go back and research every mother in this country as well.  See if any may have drank a glass of wine, smoked a cigarette or lived with a husband that smoked near her or ate too many grams of saturated fat while pregnant and charge them with attempted murder.


This is one of the GOPs fever dreams come true. They want to govern by faith and religion. The space separating church and state keeps getting smaller.
Mitchell
Novice Angler
  • Total Posts : 79
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2023/10/06 09:41:03
  • Location: Freeport, Pa.
  • Status: offline
Re: Trump 2024 2024/02/22 18:13:45 (permalink)
Porktown
Not to stray away from the gun debate.  How about that Chris Collinsworth guy?  
 
A quick search says there are at least 600k-1M frozen embryos in the US.  I personally think we should round up every couple that puts their baby in a freezer.  That is just cruel.  We should probably go back and research every mother in this country as well.  See if any may have drank a glass of wine, smoked a cigarette or lived with a husband that smoked near her or ate too many grams of saturated fat while pregnant and charge them with attempted murder.



 
Porktown, I'd like to give you credit for being facetious, but your post is flat out ridiculous! You need to chill out and tone it down a bit!
 
We were discussing mandatory jail time for gun crimes, and I remember that somewhere back in time, there was a law passed that any gun crime was a minimum 5 years jail time. May have even been before the Clinton Administration. Prompted me to look it up, and I didn't find when it was done, but I found the following information.
In Pa., carrying a firearm, (they must mean a handgun) without a license:
     Can be a 1st degree misdemeanor or a 3rd degree felony. A misdemeanor
     could face a 2.5yr to 5 year jail time, and up to a maximum $10,000 fine.
     If convicted of the felony, anywhere from 3.5 yrs. to 7 years, with up to a 
     maximum $15,000 fine.
     Armed robbery is 7 to 14 years for a first offense.
     Concealed carry without a permit is a 3rd degree felony, and carries up to a 
     maximum 7 years and $15,000.
 
That sounds like a hell of a deterrent to me, but I have to question how many cases are actually prosecuted. Just from the gangs and gangbangers, there should be thousands behind bars, but my guess is those cases get plea bargained away, especially when appearing before an ultra liberal J o P or a judge. I'd bet a lot of them never see court.

Whenever you want to know what the Democrats are up to, watch what they accuse the other side of doing.
Porktown
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 9686
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2001/09/04 16:37:05
  • Status: online
Re: Trump 2024 2024/02/22 19:48:31 (permalink)
Typical baby hater!

Joking aside Mitch, I know you as an honest dude. Sometimes politically driven with your “Crats” comments, which are pretty refreshing at times, but you seem to have your own opinion that doesn’t always fall in line with the GOP party line.

That said, what is your honest response to this Alabama Supreme Court ruling that embryos should have the same rights as babies. Since there is no political stance on either side. Let’s get the responses from you and others. See if they stay the same in a month or two when there is a political response.

Call my comment ridiculous if you want. I find it ridiculous of spending over 20 years on this site, this same debate came up 20 times. EVERY SINGLE COMMENT that has been brought up the past few days was part of the debate of at least 2-3, if not EVERY debate over the years. Feel free to read my comments when this started a few days back. You guys are doing exactly what I predicted and repeating over and over. Next year at some point we will have the same. Do you really stand by my comments of putting a rather new topic up for debate? One that people can’t go and pull from the party line to get their talking points or “facts” from? Put our critical thinking brains to work and comment on something that doesn’t have set political definitions. Let’s see who here really can critically think and not repeat party lines.
post edited by Porktown - 2024/02/22 22:00:14
JerryS
Expert Angler
  • Total Posts : 278
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2006/06/25 23:50:13
  • Location: N.W. PA
  • Status: offline
Re: Trump 2024 2024/02/22 21:30:56 (permalink)
CTKsnowman
JerryS
 
 
Sorry, "just enforce the current gun laws" is more NRA propaganda. You can make them mandatory death sentence, but they are useless without the manpower to enforce them.
 


Firstly, it's important to recognize that dismissing the call to enforce existing gun laws as mere propaganda overlooks the genuine need for effective law enforcement in addressing gun violence. While the NRA may advocate for various positions, the principle of enforcing existing laws is not inherently tied to any particular organization's agenda. Instead, it reflects a fundamental aspect of governance and public safety.

Secondly, the assertion that enforcing current gun laws is futile without adequate manpower overlooks the potential effectiveness of targeted enforcement strategies. It's true that manpower is crucial for effective enforcement, but it's not the sole determinant of success. Utilizing resources efficiently, focusing on high-risk areas and individuals, and employing technology can significantly enhance enforcement efforts without necessarily requiring a massive increase in manpower.

JerryS
Only the ATF can enforce Federal gun laws. It is no secret that the GOP does not want current gun laws enforced. For decades they have fought any increase in ATF funding, and have even sponsored many bills to eliminate the ATF. They have enacted laws banning resources from other gov't agencies (FBI, etc..) from helping ATF enforcement. This is all due to NRA lobbying.

Due to the limited number of field agents (about 2500 across 50 states), the ATF relies on state and local police departments to help enforce Federal gun laws. Thanks again to NRA lobbying, many GOP states (one source states 16) have enacted laws that forbids state and local police from working with the ATF.




While it's true that the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) plays a significant role in enforcing federal gun laws, it's inaccurate and unfair to attribute the enforcement of these laws solely to one agency.

While the ATF is a federal agency tasked with enforcing federal gun laws, it's not the sole entity responsible. Various law enforcement agencies at federal, state, and local levels play roles in enforcing these laws. For instance, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) also has jurisdiction over certain aspects of firearms-related crimes. Furthermore, state and local law enforcement agencies often collaborate with federal authorities on these matters.

Painting the issue of enforcing gun laws as solely a Republican opposition misrepresents the complexity of political attitudes toward gun regulation. Both major political parties have diverse viewpoints on gun legislation, with individuals on both sides advocating for different approaches. There are Republicans who support stricter enforcement of existing gun laws, just as there are Democrats who may advocate for more leniency.

Lastly while I realizes you are passionate about your position there are two things you need to know about me going forward.

1. I have never supported the NRA, I am not a shill for their propaganda. 
2. I worked in law enforcement for 5 years. I have enforced gun laws at the state and federal level on multiple occasions. 






First off, my intention was not to imply you personally were a shill for the NRA, just that the argument of enforcing existing gun laws (which they greatly exaggerate at 20,000) is direct from their playbook.  While I agree with most of what you stated above, I do feel you avoided the core of my argument that the NRA and the GOP have placed major roadblocks to gun law enforcement.
 
With that said, I allowed myself to stray off-course of where my focus is, which is how can we reduce mass shootings, especially involving kids?  As MyWar stated, the typical mass shooter is a mentally ill individual that has no criminal history, and has access to a legally purchased gun.  No gun law is going to stop this. In my opinion, the only answer is to limit the gun access.
 
Most of us here agree that fully automatic guns have no place in our society.  I just advocate moving the needle to include semi-auto rifles with large capacity magazines.  Any argument to counter my view could also be used to support allowing fully automatic rifles.
 
Sure, the mass shooter could use another style gun, or a motor vehicle, but the odds are less people will die.  As DeadGator stated, the goal is mitigation, not elimination.
post edited by JerryS - 2024/02/22 21:36:45
snagr
Expert Angler
  • Total Posts : 503
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2020/06/23 12:24:34
  • Status: offline
Re: Trump 2024 2024/02/22 22:18:42 (permalink)
JerryS
I just advocate moving the needle to include semi-auto rifles with large capacity magazines. 


How many bullets should the magazine of a semi auto rifle be limited to?

How bout handguns? Is a ten shot clip too much or just right?
Mitchell
Novice Angler
  • Total Posts : 79
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2023/10/06 09:41:03
  • Location: Freeport, Pa.
  • Status: offline
Re: Trump 2024 2024/02/22 23:47:25 (permalink)
Porktown, I think the Alabama legislature failed to think about the consequences of their law back in '18, and the Supreme Court ruled on the law as it was written. When it comes to Pro-Life verses Abortion, there are extremists on both ends, ie abortion is wrong under any circumstances and abortions right up to birth are ok, which I consider flat out murder. In Alabama, it appears the pro-life zealots won out when crafting the legislation.
 
Personally, I am pro life, but I thought the Dobbs decision was a reasonable compromise given by the US supreme court. And I know that the US ruling did not end abortion, it put the onus on state legislatures which should have been done back in 1970. That court erred. I believe that since the embryo is created outside of the womb by fertilizing the eggs that were retrieved through ovulation, it does not become a life until re-inserted into the mother's womb, and in my opinion it still is not life until about 6 weeks or so until a heartbeat can be heard. That's all I'm gonna say on the subject. I'd rather discuss the lunacy of the 'Crats and the 'Pubs on a federal level. It's more entertaining!
 

Whenever you want to know what the Democrats are up to, watch what they accuse the other side of doing.
MyWar
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 1939
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2018/06/03 06:54:05
  • Status: online
Re: Trump 2024 2024/02/23 00:36:56 (permalink)
Porktown

That said, what is your honest response to this Alabama Supreme Court ruling that embryos should have the same rights as babies. Since there is no political stance on either side. Let’s get the responses from you and others. See if they stay the same in a month or two when there is a political response.

Call my comment ridiculous if you want. I find it ridiculous of spending over 20 years on this site, this same debate came up 20 times. EVERY SINGLE COMMENT that has been brought up the past few days was part of the debate of at least 2-3, if not EVERY debate over the years. Feel free to read my comments when this started a few days back. You guys are doing exactly what I predicted and repeating over and over. Next year at some point we will have the same. Do you really stand by my comments of putting a rather new topic up for debate?


How about this: the Alabama Supreme Court ruling is fukking bonkers and it should scare the shiit out of people that care about making their own private decisions for their own private lives.

And if trump gets elected to a 2nd term, he will probably be able to stack the US Supreme Court with enough crazy far right judges to get the same decision from that court too. If you don’t think that’s possible, think about in how unrealistic it seemed that Roe would be overturned before 2022.

But swing voters will only see “Biden old”, because most people don’t even pay attention to this kind of stuff.
Porktown
Pro Angler
  • Total Posts : 9686
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2001/09/04 16:37:05
  • Status: online
Re: Trump 2024 2024/02/23 08:45:48 (permalink) ☄ Helpfulby crappiefisher 2024/02/23 10:14:19
Mitchell
abortions right up to birth are ok, which I consider flat out murder.


I don’t believe this was legal in any state. I think 99.999% of people would agree right up to birth would be murder.

 
Mitchell
I believe that since the embryo is created outside of the womb by fertilizing the eggs that were retrieved through ovulation, it does not become a life until re-inserted into the mother's womb, and in my opinion it still is not life until about 6 weeks or so until a heartbeat can be heard. 

I’m not sure if I follow the first part of your statement. Whether in or outside of the womb, it is still living cells. I follow the second part of heartbeat, which is around the same time that the brain starts forming and the central nervous system starts. I’m not saying that is when life starts in my opinion.

Live cells are technically life. Every sperm and every egg are live cells. I have probably killed more of my own sperm as a teen, than an earth ending asteroid would kill people.

Abortion is women’s health and women’s decision. If a fetus is unable to support life on its own, it is not a baby. That was Roe v Wade. Not, kill them up to birthday. It might be a complex set of living cells, but it is not a baby. My moral decision if I were a woman, would be to not abort beyond a heartbeat, unless I was Trumped in a bathroom and didn’t know I was pregnant, or if major medical conditions for myself or the unborn fetus development. But my moral judgement shouldn’t be a law on women’s health. It is a woman’s health decision, not something forced upon women’s health by old men.
JerryS
Expert Angler
  • Total Posts : 278
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2006/06/25 23:50:13
  • Location: N.W. PA
  • Status: offline
Re: Trump 2024 2024/02/23 10:41:26 (permalink)
snagr
JerryS
I just advocate moving the needle to include semi-auto rifles with large capacity magazines. 


How many bullets should the magazine of a semi auto rifle be limited to?

How bout handguns? Is a ten shot clip too much or just right?



Ten rounds makes sense since it is the standard min size already in production, and is not much different than other semi-auto hunting rifles.  Ten is also appropriate for handguns.  Handguns are not nearly as effective in killing as ARs and they have a justifiable need in society; personal protection.
Page: << < ..2627282930.. > >> Showing page 30 of 34
Jump to: