yoink

You don't need to fix everything all at once... You don't even need to 'fix' (meaning zero out) anything at once - it's OK to make incremental improvements. Is your stance that unless we can remove ALL gun deaths in the country then we shouldn't do anything at all? Because that's what makes people go 'well, banning every gun ever' is the only solution. The suggestion I had on remotely locked weapons would almost entirely cut out the public mass-shootings and a whole bunch of criminal shootings, but wouldn't do anything about domestic murder or suicide - and I'd be absolutely fine with that. That's my cut-off point. You'd have your right to shoot yourself at home if you chose, with whatever piece of your arsenal you want, and the domestic murders are a price I'm willing to sacrifice to meet gun rights people halfway in order to stop the mass-killings and cut down on criminal activity. ...But you heard HooknSwoop - his desire to be able to shoot guns whenever and wherever he wants is more important that the almost certain reduction in those types of deaths.

I don't think banning guns outright would work in the US. If I thought it would then I'd be for it. But what I've not heard from you (or from most people on the gun rights side) is either an admittance that you personally are willing to accept the continual mass murders so that you can continue to have access to firearms, or any remote suggestion of what controls might work. It's a piece of piss just to sit there and go 'no' to every suggestion - it requires no effort, thought or flexibility on your part. You don't even bother to explain WHY you think ideas aren't valid because that would open the door for discussion which is anathema to you. Let's try with a simple question that you posed a page ago - what is the acceptable number of deaths to YOU? Is it the current 11,000+? Is it 5000? 500? Is there no limit? I actually think the idea of a remotely locked firearm which can only be fired in specific designated areas is something that might work. You can have as many guns as you want, but they can only be fired on your own property or at a range by default. If you want an exception for hunting you'd need to apply for a specific zone for a specific date which would then need to be approved. Obviously if someone starts applying for a zone in a school, or city center it doesn't get validated...

- punctuation mine... Just so we're clear - in this post you have agreed that any one of the laws I suggested (if passed) would put a stop to these kind of incidents. I'm glad we can finally agree that a law of some sort CAN indeed be developed and put in place that would theoretically stop these kinds of events. So much for your 'there's no law' argument. You missed the sarcasm. What you suggests was a list of ridicules proposals that are worse than what we have and you know damned well not one of them is viable. In short, you ain't got shit...... Now you're changing the goalposts. You have stated repeatedly that 'no law would stop these incidents'. That was the argument you kept making while offering nothing substantive of your own... You said nothing about the viability of getting the law passed, and 'worse' is entirely subjective. In short, you're wrong. Again. As usual.

Sad, isn't it? See a post I made in the mass shootings thread a few days ago - Objective facts aren't what they used to be. They're more emotional than they've ever been... which is ridiculous. 'Here's a proven fact!' 'I don't like it. It must be FAKE NEWS. Moving on...' That is the world we're really living in - I'm still baffled by it. I honestly don't know how to communicate effectively in it.

Source: https://twitter.com/pollreport/status/919338655939887104 Data: http://www.pollingreport.com/trump_ad.htm I can understand how some people may still support Trump. Okay, root for your team no matter what, but how the hell does anyone believe Trump is honest? Seriously. How the hell is that even possible? Not only is Trump a liar. I believe he enjoys it. I also believe he's freakin' HORRIBLE at it. I have never seen any conman in my life who was so blatantly bad at outright lies. It's not lying. It's LEADERSHIP. This is how real men run stuff. Not pussy liberals.

- punctuation mine... Just so we're clear - in this post you have agreed that any one of the laws I suggested (if passed) would put a stop to these kind of incidents. I'm glad we can finally agree that a law of some sort CAN indeed be developed and put in place that would theoretically stop these kinds of events. So much for your 'there's no law' argument.

LOL I have asked for something substantive. Yet you or anyone else can come up with any law currently in place or that could be added that would have stopped this from happening. Irony score 10 'Any person owning or selling any firearm, firearm component or ammunition will be tortured to death over the space of 24 hours'. or how about this: 'All firearms must be fitted with a device that will remotely prevent firing unless unlocked at the scene by a federal officer.' or this: 'All firearms must be fitted with tamper-proof explosive devices which will detonate if the weapon is fired outside of approved firing zones'. There you go - 3 laws that would likely stop mass shootings over the next 100 years or so as people handed them in, forgot about them or couldn't get replacement parts. And yes, they're as fucking stupid and unrealistic as your 'give me one law that will fix it' argument. Now go and find a new one, because I've just put this one to bed. Every single time you post this nonsense argument I'm going to post one of the above - and you can't prove they wouldn't work because you're not a time traveler.

As amusing as this is, there is a very real crisis in the US at the moment. It's a crisis that has far reaching consequences... Somehow it's become acceptable to dismiss anything we disagree with as 'fake news', and to genuinely give it no more thought. You can provide all the facts you want on a subject but as long as it's acceptable to simply reply 'Fake!' without having a rational discourse around it then there is zero chance of reaching any compromise on a subject. Even worse it's insidiously easy to resort to this formula. Real conversation is hard and takes thought and time. Many people will take the easier option just due to laziness and that will result in it becoming ever more acceptable. I'd love to hear solutions to this problem, because without it people won't even recognize other ones.

More fake news as it has nothing to do with a constitutional right. Same BS you use for health care. You make it up as you go. As usual, I think you're deliberately oversimplifying. From my reading into it, your employer cannot remove your constitutional rights. (That's what the constitution means)... They CAN impose a penalty for exercising them in company time or on company property, but if you choose to do it and suffer the consequences then your right to do so is constitutionally protected.

That's quite the accusation there. Please provide proof (substantiated evidence) that he was allowed to 'keep doing his dirty deeds' directly because he was a democratic donor. I'd be interested to see that. Of course if you can't, I'd expect a retraction of your statement.

Looks like he's a piece of shit and should get what's coming to him. What's your point?

15 yard penalty and loss of down? Who knows what the NFL will do, but the Dallas Cowboys already have their own rule. Kneel and you don't play. And they're allowed to do that. It'd be interesting to see what happens if players keep kneeling... I'm betting it wouldn't take too many forfeited matches due to too-few players for them to revise their policy. What's going to be worse for their bottom line? Allowing players to kneel during the national anthem and losing a few fans, or not playing any matches?

Why do we have to pick one? I'd choose to try and save people from both types of death, thanks.

I'm not too convinced by this either.

If these are the worst mistakes you make in your skydiving career you're doing better than most. Don't worry about it - you reacted correctly to the situation that presented itself. At the same time as feeling a bit stupid about rushing a pack job (you are going to do this again, by the way ) you should also give yourself a big 'Hell Yeah!' and a beer for doing your first real emergency procedure correctly. Post situation analysis is a good thing, and a bit of 'shit - that was dumb' self reflection isn't too bad. But don't take it too far. Learn the lessons and move on with a smile.

"The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun" - NRA President Wayne LaPierre. If only there had been good people carrying guns around in this one - That would have stopped this! Oh... wait. Well. Not just people carrying a gun, obviously. But people who practiced with them regularly - That would have stopped this! Oh... wait.

Mandatory licensing with psychological screening as a component, as is common in many countries. You finished yet? I don't think that would have stopped Paddock. He was about as vanilla as they come, no police record, nothing. This is part of the problem - people are obsessed with finding the one answer that will solve every single issue on one go, and there just isn't one. It's too complex a problem for that and the gun rights side know it. There will always be an argument to be made of 'well that solution isn't going to work in this specific situation, so obviously we shouldn't do it.' They miss the fact that maybe we can find something that reduces the liklihood by 50%. Or 30%. Or 20%, and that's a good start - it's not the pperfect 100%, but it's better than 0%. Pick off the low hanging fruit first. The pareto principle applies, I suspect.

Why do you hate America, Ron?

Holy shit. I thought this was a joke thread.

Yes. I hope so as well. I hope nobody dies needlessly due to a mental illness, or through poor decision making. BTW, why use "innocent" twice when referring to the same subject in a single sentence? they have mental illnesses and poor decision making in other first world Western countries. None of them seem to have this discussion multiple times a year.

Couldn't agree more.

Let's do this in small steps: 1) I would suggest that 11,000+ American citizens being killed by guns so far this year is a problem. Would you agree with that, or not? 2) I believe that somehow curtailing access to and/or the abilities of firearms would probably reduce these 11,000 gun-related deaths. After all, it would be pretty difficult for 11,000 people do die to guns if (to use a ridiculous example) there were no guns in existence... Would you agree with that logic? If we can't agree on those 2 points then there's not even any point in having a discussion about potential solutions. You have to agree on the problem before you start proposing solutions, after all. You're trying to rush to the end - 'show me a solution so that I can debunk it!' But because the problem isn't clearly agreed it's easy for you to continually try and move the goalposts. You've said you're willing to listen to ideas - how about contributing? It's easy just to say 'you're wrong' to everything. how about telling us what YOU think the problem is, and what your ideas are?

Bodycam footage here http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-41514782/police-shoot-at-actor-dressed-as-bank-robber-in-indiana The movie makers are idiots. They failed to inform the police they'd be shooting a movie with a scene like this. If someone had actually been shot a large portion of the blame would have been on their heads. BUT, to my completely untrained eye, the policeman either shoots with no provocation or he accidentally fires his weapon. What say those of you with LEO experience?

Your unprovable supposition aside, Western society would collapse without some form of personal / commercial transportation so removing them entirely isn't really an option. But we do have hundreds of laws that try to make those vehicles as safe as possible. Crumple zones, airbags, seatbelts, speed limits, tire regulations etc etc... Neither of those things are true about guns. Society would not collapse if every gun in the world just blinked out of existence tomorrow, and they are specifically designed to do harm (that's their purpose) so laws limiting the harm they can do would be contrary to their basic function. I feel like you've used this argument before and have been made to look foolish each time. You have no comeback though, so just keep repeating the same thing - you're like a stuck record. At least Lee was honest enough to say that he thinks his right to own guns is worth the continual carnage they cause and tries to find data to back up his claims. As usual, you just parrot meaningless phrases and arguments that are spoon-fed to you without any conscious thoughts of your own.

We need to be careful about stuff like this. It's easy to point out something discrete like the magazine or the bump stock which could have a specific and limited law placed against it. But the reality is that the scope of destruction between a 100 round magazine and 2x50 round magazines isn't much different... It would be the equivalent of a band-aid on an arterial wound. Sure, it might make you feel better about doing something, but basically you've just wasted time and effort in getting it done. Not only that, but you've now pissed off the gun rights advocates in passing any gun control law for very limited results, so the chance of any further limitations would be non-existent. Any action taken needs to be well thought out, strategic and bipartisan - not just hammering something (anything) through the legislative process just in order to say that something has been done. The first step is for people on both sides to agree that there is some sort of problem - Without that absolutely nothing can happen. The next step can be to define the scope of the issue.