More Thoughts & Prayers

[floplag]

1 hour ago, RallyMo said:

Ummmm, that's because controlling guns strictly is the one and only thing that will change this. We need to lock down all firearms to solve this problem.

What in the world is ostrich syndrome? You can't just make stuff up willy nilly. Do you think that people are actually believing that they are birds or something?

What will it change?  You have no positive proof to suggest this will affect anything.  
It wont stop crime, cities with most restrictive laws have highest crime rates in country, CA has most restrictive laws still has mass murders, inner city violence hasnt stopped... what exactly do you feel gun control will change in and of itself without looking at supporting issues as it isnt any of the above?  
Ostrich syndrome = stick you head in the sand and hide when scared, this would be about as effective.  

[Blarg]

2 hours ago, RallyMo said:

Ummmm, that's because controlling guns strictly is the one and only thing that will change this. We need to lock down all firearms to solve this problem.

What in the world is ostrich syndrome? You can't just make stuff up willy nilly. Do you think that people are actually believing that they are birds or something?

Ostrich Parasitic Syndrome is probably closer to the point. It's a conceptual- myopia/dissonance/creep and moral impairment of misplaced solidarité commune. 

[Amazing Larry]

22 minutes ago, calscuf said:

When I read the pro-gun posts and those responding in support I can’t get the lemon party photo out of my head.

Ya but you're always thinking of that photo so we can rule out causation.

[RallyMo]

2 hours ago, floplag said:

What will it change?  You have no positive proof to suggest this will affect anything.  
It wont stop crime, cities with most restrictive laws have highest crime rates in country, CA has most restrictive laws still has mass murders, inner city violence hasnt stopped... what exactly do you feel gun control will change in and of itself without looking at supporting issues as it isnt any of the above?  
Ostrich syndrome = stick you head in the sand and hide when scared, this would be about as effective.  

 

[floplag]

31 minutes ago, calscuf said:

When I read the pro-gun posts and those responding in support I can’t get the lemon party photo out of my head.

The thing you dont get about some of though is that it isnt about guns.   Im sure for some it is, Im not one of them.  
Im not pro-gun, I dont think a random citizen should possess weapons capable of taking out buildings. What i am is anti taking away rights without a reason.  Guns just happen to be one of those rights as things stand today.
We allow that to be taken away as we did privacy and so many other things under the Patriot Act and such whats next?  Were allowing freedom of speech to be quashed thru violent rioting.  
Just cause you agree with those cases doesn't make it right, if it was in reverse what would you think?   It has to apply the same to both sides and all of the above or it isnt right. 

[UndertheHalo]

“Banning military weapons didn’t stop gangsters from killing people”

Congrats guys.  You’ve once again made an argument against every law ever. 

People still run red lights.  What the point of having them ? 

[mtangelsfan]

In California it is illegal to use a cell while driving.  It is also illegal misuse the carpool lane.

when I was just there guess what I saw a lot of?  If you don't enforce the law.........

[UndertheHalo]

3 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

In California it is illegal to use a cell while driving.  It is also illegal misuse the carpool lane.

when I was just there guess what I saw a lot of?  If you don't enforce the law.........

Laws are meant to punish and dissuade.  

If the expectation is elimination of this or that then the expectation is unrealistic. 

Trust me, if you get caught texting or using a handset while driving.  The fine is shitty.  Especially if it’s a 2nd offense.  It does make you think twice. 

[Make Angels Great Again]

Here's the thing, if we ban guns the only possible outcome is a more peaceful society. After all, people were clearly peaceful and never mass murdered prior to guns.

[red321]

7 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

In California it is illegal to use a cell while driving.  It is also illegal misuse the carpool lane.

when I was just there guess what I saw a lot of?  If you don't enforce the law.........

did you wave at lhalo when you saw him blow by you?

[UndertheHalo]

4 minutes ago, Make Angels Great Again said:

Here's the thing, if we ban guns the only possible outcome is a more peaceful society. After all, people were clearly peaceful and never mass murdered prior to guns.

No one in this thread and very few gun control advocates talk about “banning guns” keep running with that straw man though.  

No one is saying gun control is the magic pill for curing the short comings of human beings.  Another excellent straw man you’ve got going. 

 

Edited March 5, 2018 by UndertheHalo

[mtangelsfan]

9 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

Laws are meant to punish and dissuade.  

If the expectation is elimination of this or that then the expectation is unrealistic. 

Trust me, if you get caught texting or using a handset while driving.  The fine is shitty.  Especially if it’s a 2nd offense.  It does make you think twice. 

Seems like not too many think twice

[red321]

6 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

Seems like not too many think twice

seeing a handful of people illegally in the carpool lane or talking on the phone, when you consider how many millions of people are on the freeways in Southern California...my math is a little rusty but that percentage is negligible.

[UndertheHalo]

2 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

Seems like not too many think twice

You’re right lots of people use their phones while they drive.  But it doesn’t make the law bad or pointless.  It surely encourages people to limit the use of their phone while driving which is a good thing.  That people choose to risk the fines is besides the point.  That reality doesn’t render the law pointless.  And like I said, the 2nd offense is quite severe relatively for a traffic infraction.  I doubt many go out of their way to run that risk. 

[mtangelsfan]

1 minute ago, red321 said:

seeing a handful of people illegally in the carpool lane or talking on the phone, when you consider how many millions of people are on the freeways in Southern California...my math is a little rusty but that percentage is negligible.

Handful?   LOL 

[mtangelsfan]

1 minute ago, UndertheHalo said:

You’re right lots of people use their phones while they drive.  But it doesn’t make the law bad or pointless.  It surely encourages people to limit the use of their phone while driving which is a good thing.  That people choose to risk the fines is besides the point.  That reality doesn’t render the law pointless.  And like I said, the 2nd offense is quite severe relatively for a traffic infraction.  I doubt many go out of their way to run that risk. 

No, it means it must be enforced or it is pointless 

[UndertheHalo]

Just now, mtangelsfan said:

No, it means it must be enforced or it is pointless 

It is enforced. 

[Tank]

19 minutes ago, Make Angels Great Again said:

Here's the thing, if we ban guns the only possible outcome is a more peaceful society. After all, people were clearly peaceful and never mass murdered prior to guns.

i've said from the beginning that this issue has mulitple layers to it. i don't recall anyone here saying that all guns should be banned.

[mtangelsfan]

10 minutes ago, UndertheHalo said:

It is enforced. 

Then it doesn't work

[Make Angels Great Again]

23 minutes ago, Tank said:

i've said from the beginning that this issue has mulitple layers to it. i don't recall anyone here saying that all guns should be banned.

 

Nah I know, just @nate.

I'm just underlining the point that gun control is ineffective. You're just gonna see problems in different areas pop up.

[Taylor]

46 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

Handful?   LOL 

Woah, wait ...

Montana has carpool lanes?

[UndertheHalo]

35 minutes ago, mtangelsfan said:

Then it doesn't work

round and round we go.  

[Amazing Larry]

1 hour ago, red321 said:

did you wave at lhalo when you saw him blow by you?

My commute everyday:

[tennischmp]

1 hour ago, mtangelsfan said:

No, it means it must be enforced or it is pointless 

How many cops did you see on your drive? Maybe in Montana you got cops sitting at every mile marker looking for those breaking the law, that's not possible in CA. 

[red321]

Has anyone posted this yet?

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/03/during-nra-conventions-gun-injuries-drop-20-nationwide-63-in-hosting-state/

When gun enthusiasts gather for the National Rifle Association’s annual conventions, rates of gun-related injuries and deaths drop by 20 percent nationwide—and a whopping 63 percent in the hosting state—according to an analysis published this week in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The finding was based on an analysis of insurance data on gun injury rates during NRA conventions from 2007 through 2015, as well as rates three weeks before and three weeks after each of the conventions. The researchers behind the work—health policy expert Anupam Jena, MD, PhD of Harvard Medical School and economist Andrew Olenski of Columbia University—also looked at crime rates during those times....

....Though the analysis can only provide a correlation—not causation—Jena and Olenski suggest it may refute a common argument among gun proponents. That is, that gun accidents happen primarily in the hands of inexperienced users and that practice and training—promoted by the NRA—can greatly reduce or eliminate safety concerns and accidents