What's new
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

Sure. They check to see if there is a mechanical failure that can be corrected in still existing planes, or if there is some sort of pilot training that can be helpful. But, of course, they don't "prevent it from happening again" do they?
Just because another plane might crash for an entirely different reason doesn't mean it isn't worth fixing the reason this particular plane crashed going forward.
 
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

I bet once you put tons of armed wanna be cops/cowboys everywhere (aka George Zimmermans) it suddenly becomes a lot more common for any altercation or perceived threat (real or imaginary) to be settled with guns. Your ideas are probably more likely to kill someone than they are to stop a mass shooting.

That's as hypothetical as saying banning guns will stop gun violence.
 
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

That's as hypothetical as saying banning guns will stop gun violence.

But nobody is saying either of those two things. The question is whether having more regulation of guns will decrease the number of guns out there, and thus decrease the number of gun-related deaths.
 
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

But nobody is saying either of those two things. The question is whether having more regulation of guns will decrease the number of guns out there, and thus decrease the number of gun-related deaths.

Someone doesn't understand the definition of "shall not be infringed". Not surprising from someone who has called for complete gun bans in the past. And no, regulation won't decrease them. It will only make for more defenceless people. After all, we know how those criminals love following laws... :rolleyes:
 
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

But nobody is saying either of those two things. The question is whether having more regulation of guns will decrease the number of guns out there, and thus decrease the number of gun-related deaths.

Regulating won't decrease the number out there. Only ... confiscation ... will do that. So, do you favor an outright ban and confiscation?
 
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

A drunk driver kills someone every 52 minutes*. That's over 4000 dead so far, completely preventable. Ban alcohol and cars?

Source: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/812102.pdf

To me, the difference between drunk drivers killing people and guns killing people is a drunk driver doesn't set out to kill people, it happens because they're stupid and drink too much and think they'll be fine. Someone doesn't bring an assault weapon and then have it tragically unload into a crowd killing people by accident. These types of mass killings are planned.
 
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

So we're agreed. The world is perfect and nothing needs to change in our laws, hearts, or minds.


Koombya, my lord! Koombyah! (Oh however the hell you spell that lousy word.)
 
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

But nobody is saying either of those two things. The question is whether having more regulation of guns will decrease the number of guns out there, and thus decrease the number of gun-related deaths.

I think most people, gun owners included, would agree with the beginning and end of that statement. More regulations will reduce the number of deaths. I don't know if it would reduce the number of guns and I don't know if reducing the number of guns would reduce the number of deaths significantly. I don't know that it wouldn't either.
 
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

1. Ban all Assault weapons (I need a better definition of assault weapons. It can't just be what people think looks scary or militaristic. Especially given the difference between an assault weapon and a semi-automatic rifle.)and limitations on high capacity magazines What is the proposed cap? I'd suggest 10-15.
2. Universal background checks on all gun sales Agreed.
3. Close the Charleston loophole: no firearm sale without a completed background check Agreed
4. Close the terror gap by prohibiting gun sales to those on the No-Fly list I think I need better definition here. I've always been squeamish about this. For someone to have their Constitutional rights taken away, it has to have a high standard. A very high standard. Take convicted felons as an example. Being convicted of a felony has a very high bar and there is an open and documented appeals process.
5. End the CDC ban on gun violence research I'm almost positive I'm in agreement here. What are the legitimate concerns with this research? I know this is asking a lot of some people, but if you respond, please be intelligent in your answer
6. Domestic violence restraining order to prevent abusers with a temporary restraining order from possessing firearms Temporary fine. I think. Again, this goes back to the high bar for removing a person's Constitutional right. There needs to be a cap on both one-time length and a cap on total length stemming from a single report/request. Basically, I would like to see a 30-day (or less) cap on the first time it's approved. Maximum 120 days overall. This can't be a permanent temproary order.
7. Repeal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) No. In 99% of all cases, no.
8. Child access prevention law for safe storage of firearms I'm ok with this depending on what the constraints are.

Anyone?
 
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

Trained, range qualified shooters, who've been exposed to the concepts of crowded spaces and backgrounds (what's beyond the target).

He asked for my solution. I'm sorry you don't like it. I don't like soft targets that the guano loco crowd seems to prefer.

I'll just say, I think your apparent belief in how your average concealed carrier would respond in a situation like this is a tad deluded.
 
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

Just because another plane might crash for an entirely different reason doesn't mean it isn't worth fixing the reason this particular plane crashed going forward.
Ok, so we investigate this. Now, what do we do? What is the fix you've identified?

This guy was a security guard. He apparently had a special license authorizing him to have or carry a weapon, in addition to the conceal and carry permit available to the general public who meet the requirements. How exactly does the background check prevent this shooting (and keep in mind, I don't oppose background checks)?

The guy was carrying an AR-15, but also had at least one handgun. So, are you proposing we ban both of those? If you propose just banning one, what about the other one? You don't think he takes two handguns with him, or maybe a shotgun and a handgun if the AR-15 is banned.

People here have suggested, "just treat guns like cars", like with two seconds thought they've stumbled onto the magic bullet (pun intended) for solving gun violence.

But let's think this through.

Both are items of personal property. Both can be purchased new through dealers, and used through dealers and/or private citizens.

Both have identifying numbers, but cars also have a license plate, visible to anyone (i.e. law enforcement) who come across that vehicle in public. Are we going to do something similar with guns? Do we have to renew those plates?

Once you lawfully buy one of these items, it will leave your possession in one of these ways: You will lose it, it will be stolen from you, you will sell or barter it, you will give it away, you will die and someone will inherit it, or it will be come junk and you will discard it.

In none of those examples, with cars, do we put any sort of onus on the seller to make sure that the buyer/receiver of the property is licensed, has passed a background check, is not mentally ill, is not on some watch list or no-fly list, etc... Are we going to do that with private sellers of guns, because if that's your proposal, forget about it. That simply won't work. It's not possible. People aren't smart enough to figure that out and won't do it anyway.

So, we just let private sellers sell or gift or devise their guns to whomever they want. Now what? There goes your treating guns like cars theory.

A person who receives a car by purchase or gift or bequest actually needs to take the title and go down and register it otherwise its useless to them. If they don't do that, they'll be driving around in public with no valid plates or registration and they will be stopped. How will that work with guns, exactly?

I'll tell you how it will work. The bad guy will buy it at a private sale, he won't register it, and before you ever figure it out he'll use it to shoot up a nightclub.

I've never said we should stop thinking of possible ways to address these shootings. What I have said is that these ideas that you guys are floating simply won't work, but all they'll do is give politicians a chance to pat themselves on the back and claim they did something good for us.
 
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

Sicotoka's assertion about reducing gun free zones is just as much about preventing a person from shooting up the place, because they think they'll be less successful because someone might be there with a gun to prevent it as it does actually having someone there to return fire.

Also, the night club example is a pretty bad one. Even with his proposal, by the letter of the proposal, there likely wouldn't be any, or many at all carrying, due to the BAC limit.
 
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

I'll just say, I think your apparent belief in how your average concealed carrier would respond in a situation like this is a tad deluded.

Do you speed where you know the cops set up a speed trap?

I have no misconceptions about pressure situation shooting. It's not easy.

What I'm looking for is another line of deterrence (with the home the deterrent never has to be anything more). Terrorists and criminals are actually cowards, and look for soft targets.
 
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

Do you speed where you know the cops set up a speed trap?

I have no misconceptions about pressure situation shooting. It's not easy.

What I'm looking for is another line of deterrence (with the home the deterrent never has to be anything more). Terrorists and criminals are actually cowards, and look for soft targets.

Not limited to terrorists or criminals. Happens everywhere in the animal kingdom when you're of the carnivore (or omnivore) variety.
 
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

I'll just say, I think your apparent belief in how your average concealed carrier would respond in a situation like this is a tad deluded.

More proof that Sicatoka is a loon is that there was an armed police officer on scene shooting it out with the guy. If an armed cop couldn't stop the initial onslaught how exactly is a John Rambo wannabe who never served but kills shooting at paper targets at the gun range going to help?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top