• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Florida High School Shooting

Page 73 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,306
993
126
Maybe that's what you want to debate, the rest of us are debating something entirely different than effectiveness of a gun control policy we haven't even agreed to. Your wording is akin to someone saying "we're trying to debate the effectiveness of restrictions on religion in reducing the instance of Islamic extremism" since the goal is just as debatable as the means.

The rest of us are discussing whether a potential reduction in gun deaths is worth the reduction of civil liberties including the right to own and shoot guns "just for amusement." And yes, even *gasp* whether "reducing gun deaths" is the proper measuring stick at all. Yeah I want to prevent mass shootings also but I also don't think that police shooting someone in the midst of attacking/attempting to kill another person is a "bad" gun death, or someone killing another while defending themselves from rape or their own murder is a "bad" gun death.

Exactly. When you look at the real cost of society of guns, and compare that to other liberties we have and their societal cost and impact, it is hard to argue for further restriction on our 2A rights. I want to reduce needless homicides and accidents as much as the next person, but not by forfeiting my constitutional rights.
 
  • Like
Reactions: imported_tajmahal

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
64,352
11,523
126
Maybe that's what you want to debate, the rest of us are debating something entirely different than effectiveness of a gun control policy we haven't even agreed to. Your wording is akin to someone saying "we're trying to debate the effectiveness of restrictions on religion in reducing the instance of Islamic extremism" since the goal is just as debatable as the means.
If you want to debate the goal that's fine too, but that's entirely different than saying if we want to discuss gun control policy we have to discuss income inequality at the same time.

The rest of us are discussing whether a potential reduction in gun deaths is worth the reduction of civil liberties including the right to own and shoot guns "just for amusement." And yes, even *gasp* whether "reducing gun deaths" is the proper measuring stick at all. Yeah I want to prevent mass shootings also but I also don't think that police shooting someone in the midst of attacking/attempting to kill another person is a "bad" gun death, or someone killing another while defending themselves from rape or their own murder is a "bad" gun death.
That's what we're all discussing, thanks for confirming again.
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
892
126
My opinion is that when two policies are not inextricably linked or dependent on each other we should should discuss one policy at a time because it's the only way to have a rational discussion. Otherwise it devolves into things like one person saying 'I think we should have universal background checks for guns' and someone else replying 'yes, but what about income inequality???' Not a recipe for productive discussion.
Why not first look at what the issue is, look at what factors drive the issues, look at what can be done to reduce the problem, what costs each thing has, and which we should try first. That to me seems like a productive course.


I think you may have noticed that you frequently have difficulty understanding what people are saying on here, am I right? This thread is a good example, in fact. In most cases where you see things that are weird it's likely because you're running into this comprehension problem again, not because what people think is actually weird.
I appear to have no more of a problem than anyone else. As I was saying to someone else here, I made a comment that lots of people disagreed with. I kept saying the same thing over and over, and eventually they no longer disagree with me because now they understand. It was not even a case of me saying it differently. They simply misunderstood. So that sure seems like its not me.

When people discuss solutions to problems they usually focus on one solution at a time when attempting to evaluate it. That's because if you focus on everything all at once it becomes an incomprehensible mess. Sure we could attempt to discuss gun violence by simultaneously attempting to discuss solutions to income/wealth inequality, race relations, mass incarceration, and gun availability all at once, but that would be nearly impossible to have a coherent conversation about all of those things simultaneously. It's certainly beyond my abilities, at least. Hence, you look at one at a time.
See part 1 of this post. I believe we are not at the same stage.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
64,352
11,523
126
Exactly. When you look at the real cost of society of guns, and compare that to other liberties we have and their societal cost and impact, it is hard to argue for further restriction on our 2A rights. I want to reduce needless homicides and accidents as much as the next person, but not by forfeiting my constitutional rights.
Please remove your inaccurate quotation of me from your signature. I won't ask nicely again.
 

brandonbull

Diamond Member
May 3, 2005
5,177
403
126
  • Like
Reactions: imported_tajmahal

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
64,352
11,523
126
Why not first look at what the issue is, look at what factors drive the issues, look at what can be done to reduce the problem, what costs each thing has, and which we should try first. That to me seems like a productive course.

I appear to have no more of a problem than anyone else. As I was saying to someone else here, I made a comment that lots of people disagreed with. I kept saying the same thing over and over, and eventually they no longer disagree with me because now they understand. It was not even a case of me saying it differently. They simply misunderstood. So that sure seems like its not me.

See part 1 of this post. I believe we are not at the same stage.
There's no reason we can't try all of them simultaneously, hence why they should all be discussed on their own merits. You're presenting a false choice.
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
892
126
There's no reason we can't try all of them simultaneously, hence why they should all be discussed on their own merits. You're presenting a false choice.
Lol, so we cant talk about all of them, but we can enact all of them. We are limited in talking, but not in action. You are all over the place. You an easily have a discussion of the top things and not talk about all things and still keep it very productive. Perhaps your method is total isolation, but mine is to try to keep more factors in mind and see how they might interact together.
 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,306
993
126
Please remove your inaccurate quotation of me from your signature. I won't ask nicely again.

It isn't inaccurate. According to you, what you said, guns are used 100,000-200,000 times a year in self defense, to stop a crime. Someone else claimed they were used more, that was your counter.

Your quote of fskimospy was inaccurate and has been removed. Any subsequent use of the signature function by you to misrepresent another poster or any subsequent refusal by you to remove a quote of another poster, accurate or not, when asked will result in significant time off for you and the complete removal of your signature privileges here.

Perknose
Forum Director
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: imported_tajmahal

glenn1

Elite Member
Sep 6, 2000
25,148
969
126
There's no reason we can't try all of them simultaneously, hence why they should all be discussed on their own merits. You're presenting a false choice.
We tried an Assault Weapon Ban before and it was widely judged to be a failure. That seems directly relevant to discussing the question "on their own merits" and yet you seem to want to ignore that huge data point.
 

Bird222

Diamond Member
Jun 7, 2004
3,598
122
106
Does this make it clearer for people?

This is about sentence structure. Do you want to explain why it's not correct instead of throwing insults? There is a big different between these also.

Let's eat grandma.
Let's eat, grandma.

If nothing else maybe it will help you understand why some pro 2A people feel as strongly as they do.
No takers? So I guess it's the right of the people not the militia to keep and bear arms without infringement is correct. Until you deal with that fact a lot of what you want to do with gun control just isn't constitutional.
 
  • Like
Reactions: imported_tajmahal

Thebobo

Lifer
Jun 19, 2006
18,496
7,623
136
So let's disarm inner city Chicago, NOLA, Baltimore, Detroit, DC, Philly... Do that, and that red bar by the US will slide significantly to the left. You're all about sliding to the left, so you should be all over that. :)

Also, since this thread started with yet another tragic mass shooting, let's disarm dems in general. If you look at the profiles of the mass shootings over the last 10-odd years, pretty much the only stand-out non lib was that racist bastard Dylann Roof.

Next to the above, we have to find some way of dealing with keeping with mental issues from getting guns. I've stated that before. I fully understand that it a tough issue and that there may never be a great solution, but a frank discussion on this is obviously needed.
Banning only works when you can't drive over to the next state and fill your trunk and you know that.

And what a load of tripe who was the very last killer wearing a MAGA hat? Dope.


There is no discussion needed anymore weve been doing it for 40 years
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
12,063
1,519
126
let me rephrase.
should we restrict voting and religion the same as gun rights?
No, voting and religion are not similar to guns. Just like don't restrict speech the same as voting or religion. That was a particularly lazy argument, or maybe I don't understand where you are going with it.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
20,091
5,120
136
So let's disarm inner city Chicago, NOLA, Baltimore, Detroit, DC, Philly... Do that, and that red bar by the US will slide significantly to the left. You're all about sliding to the left, so you should be all over that. :)

Also, since this thread started with yet another tragic mass shooting, let's disarm dems in general. If you look at the profiles of the mass shootings over the last 10-odd years, pretty much the only stand-out non lib was that racist bastard Dylann Roof.

Next to the above, we have to find some way of dealing with keeping with mental issues from getting guns. I've stated that before. I fully understand that it a tough issue and that there may never be a great solution, but a frank discussion on this is obviously needed.
Your association of Dems with criminals shows what is left of your brain is useless to this discussion
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
64,352
11,523
126
We tried an Assault Weapon Ban before and it was widely judged to be a failure. That seems directly relevant to discussing the question "on their own merits" and yet you seem to want to ignore that huge data point.
I don't think an assault weapon ban is a good or effective gun control policy, so if the discussion were if we should reauthorize that I would say no. Not only wasn't it effective, it gave a false impression of doing something.
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
892
126
No, voting and religion are not similar to guns. Just like don't restrict speech the same as voting or religion. That was a particularly lazy argument, or maybe I don't understand where you are going with it.
He is trying to make the argument that all are rights, so why can you take away one and not the other.

Your position I would bet is that they are inherently not the same and impact society differently and should be treated differently. Slavery being an example.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
55,481
8,678
126
We know of 2 different tips to the FBI and the FBI Director stated that the FBI did not follow protocol. Tell me again how I'm being dishonest?
Document your contention that more than one tip was received. Consider that the FBI received 6M tips in 4 years-

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/02/19/what-you-need-know-fbi-tip-line-failed-florida-shooting/352250002/

Compare & contrast that with Florida authorities-

The Broward County Sheriff said it had received dozens of calls about Cruz over the years. And former neighbors said the home stood out for its turbulence on an otherwise-quiet street.

School records obtained by USA TODAY NETWORK show Cruz had a history of violence at school. More than a dozen school officials, teachers and administrators had cited Cruz in at least 41 disciplinary incidents from May 2012 to January 2017, often for fighting, minor assaults and profane insults.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/02/19/florida-school-shooting-judge-releases-nikolas-cruz-records/353186002/

It is, of course, extremely convenient for Trump & his fanbois to blame the FBI. It's really just another episode in the misbegotten adventures of Florida Man.
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
892
126
Document your contention that more than one tip was received. Consider that the FBI received 6M tips in 4 years-

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/02/19/what-you-need-know-fbi-tip-line-failed-florida-shooting/352250002/

Compare & contrast that with Florida authorities-



https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/02/19/florida-school-shooting-judge-releases-nikolas-cruz-records/353186002/

It is, of course, extremely convenient for Trump & his fanbois to blame the FBI. It's really just another episode in the misbegotten adventures of Florida Man.
So would it be fair to say that its not perfect and sometimes it fails, but its better than nothing and we just need to accept that sometimes people will die?
 
  • Like
Reactions: imported_tajmahal

tcG

Golden Member
Jul 31, 2006
1,199
17
76
*haven't read thread*

Weapons technology reached a point in the early 1900s where anybody with sufficient means could wield massive firepower - tanks, grenade launchers, artillery, etc. In the case of such weapons, even most gun supporters agree that the right to bear arms is not absolute, and can be restricted in the case of military-grade machinery in the interest of public safety. So gun supporters don't support unrestricted gun ownership - they only support it to the extent that it doesn't pose an immediate threat to the public.

At the same time - despite the color of the debate - gun control advocates support certain activities which undoubtedly cost countless human lives each year, but are judged to be "worth" the cost due to the freedom or convenience such activities afford - activities such as drinking alcohol or granting driver's licenses.

The gun control debate tends to be so black and white, when in reality everyone implicitly accepts some balance between the right to bear arms and public safety. The debate should be about the cost/benefit of further restricting firearm ownership - potentially saving lives on the one hand and curtailing freedom on the other. Because despite what conservatives say - that firearm ownership is an unabridged right - and despite what liberals say - that potentially saving lives is always worth curtailing certain freedoms - neither side truly believes that.
 

Thebobo

Lifer
Jun 19, 2006
18,496
7,623
136
We tried an Assault Weapon Ban before and it was widely judged to be a failure. That seems directly relevant to discussing the question "on their own merits" and yet you seem to want to ignore that huge data point.
It was????????? Please provide some proof and not from the NRA :)
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
892
126
It was????????? Please provide some proof and not from the NRA :)
Just a small part of the wiki.

In 2003, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services, an independent, non-federal task force, examined an assortment of firearms laws, including the AWB, and found "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence".[27] A 2004 critical review of firearms research by a National Research Council committee said that an academic study of the assault weapon ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence outcomes". The committee noted that the study's authors said the guns were used criminally with relative rarity before the ban and that its maximum potential effect on gun violence outcomes would be very small.[28]

In 2004, a research report submitted to the United States Department of Justice and the National Institute of Justice found that should the ban be renewed, its effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as "assault rifles" or "assault weapons", are rarely used in gun crimes.[29] That study by Christopher S. Koper, Daniel J. Woods, and Jeffrey A. Roth of the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, University of Pennsylvaniafound no statistically significant evidence that either the assault weapons ban or the ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds had reduced gun murders. The authors also report that "there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence, based on indicators like the percentage of gun crimes resulting in death or the share of gunfire incidents resulting in injury." [29]
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
12,063
1,519
126
He is trying to make the argument that all are rights, so why can you take away one and not the other.

Your position I would bet is that they are inherently not the same and impact society differently and should be treated differently. Slavery being an example.
Yes, you would have my position correct. I also contend that we can preserve the the right of the people to keep and bear Arms while still restricting what arms are allowed and maintaining sensible regulations on when those arms are allowed to be beared. In fact we already all agree to that. No one thinks that it is the right of a citizen to own an atomic weapon, or open carry on an airline or in a courtroom, so we are just talking about the specifics here.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS