Church shooting - Sutherland Springs, Texas

thethe said:
I'm fine with discussing that. At the same time though, the gun regulating group needs to understand that there are millions of guns in circulation right now in the US and regulating is not going to stop gun violence. Nothing short of confiscation will do that. So the question is then - Are you willing to go to that length?
Click to expand...

I think it's enough of a start to make certain kinds of weapons off-limits, more tightly restrict certain kinds of sales, close certain kinds of loopholes, and make certain that modifications to weapons (like bump-stocks) that make them effectively illegal are prosecuted at the company level. Then maybe you consider a buy-back-and-destroy program for weapons already out there than would now be illegal to sell or purchase. Then maybe you look at confiscation of certain kinds of weapons for certain kinds of individuals—saw someone who owns a grand-fathered type of weapon and commits a violent crime. I also think it would help if states were more on the same-page with a lot of legislation and regulation; people love to talk **** about Chicago's south-side, but those guns are coming straight up from lax-law Indiana (right alongside cheap gas and cheap cigarettes).

No single one of these suggested trajectories is a perfect measure, but I think they're all worth putting on the table.
 
I have a outside-the-box idea on guns. Tax ammunition in the same way we tax cigarettes. I would make it an even higher tax rate. It is a public health issue. Put some of the revenues in a compensation fund for victims and their families.
 
that wasn't the leap i was talking about poli sci 101

it was your comment about hillary etc

you're wanting to stick to one post for some weird reason as if other things haven't been commented on

as i told thethe, this isn't 4d chess
 
jpx7 said:
I think it's enough of a start to make certain kinds of weapons off-limits, more tightly restrict certain kinds of sales, close certain kinds of loopholes, and make certain that modifications to weapons (like bump-stocks) that make them effectively illegal are prosecuted at the company level. Then maybe you consider a buy-back-and-destroy program for weapons already out there than would now be illegal to sell or purchase. Then maybe you look at confiscation of certain kinds of weapons for certain kinds of individuals—saw someone who owns a grand-fathered type of weapon and commits a violent crime. I also think it would help if states were more on the same-page with a lot of legislation and regulation; people love to talk **** about Chicago's south-side, but those guns are coming straight up from lax-law Indiana (right alongside cheap gas and cheap cigarettes).

No single one of these suggested trajectories is a perfect measure, but I think they're all worth putting on the table.
Click to expand...

I think these sound reasonable but what are the sub-definitions. Don't you see how someone who is a law abiding citizen can get uncomfortable with a 'certain kind of weapons off-limits'. A highly trained nut can kill tremendous amounts of people with a handgun. So what happens the next time we have a mass shooting and the weapon of choice is a pistol?

I know that type of response is frustrating but I hope you understand this is why conversations don't go far. There is too much of a blanket statement from gun control enthusiasts. The most common phrase you hear is 'common sense gun laws'. Well geez, that could mean anything.
 
sturg33 said:
There are more heroine deaths than gun homicides in this country.

Which is really weird, because heroine is illegal in all states.

A simple law can fix this gun issue, folks... just like it fixed heroine deaths.
Click to expand...

Not apples to apples, but in both cases corporate capitalism is an underlying driving force. In the case of the former, the issue isn't the legality of heroin, but the primary thing that gets people on heroin—which is over-prescription of opioids thanks to perfidious lobbying on the part of the pharmaceutical industry. In case of the latter, legal guns aren't the only thing that gets people killing, but the hyper-availability of guns thanks to lobbying on the part of the gun industry makes damn sure they can get the tool easily if they want to kill.
 
thethe said:
I think these sound reasonable but what are the sub-definitions. Don't you see how someone who is a law abiding citizen can get uncomfortable with a 'certain kind of weapons off-limits'. A highly trained nut can kill tremendous amounts of people with a handgun. So what happens the next time we have a mass shooting and the weapon of choice is a pistol?

I know that type of response is frustrating but I hope you understand this is why conversations don't go far. There is too much of a blanket statement from gun control enthusiasts. The most common phrase you hear is 'common sense gun laws'. Well geez, that could mean anything.
Click to expand...

Sure, but the conversation about any restriction or regulation is so very stifled right now we can't even get to the point of litigating "sub-definitions". I'll be the first to admit that I don't like guns, purposefully don't know a lot about guns, and am thus not equipped to get into the weeds of sub-definitions; but I definitely think others should.
 
nsacpi said:
I have a outside-the-box idea on guns. Tax ammunition in the same way we tax cigarettes. I would make it an even higher tax rate. It is a public health issue. Put some of the revenues in a compensation fund for victims and their families.
Click to expand...

I like this idea. I'm against blanket sales-taxes, but very much in favor of many forms of luxury taxation. In this day-and-age, for most people, ammunition is very much a luxury.
 
Supposedly this guys facebook 'likes' are what authorities are going on now in terms of a motive.
 
nsacpi said:
I have a outside-the-box idea on guns. Tax ammunition in the same way we tax cigarettes. I would make it an even higher tax rate. It is a public health issue. Put some of the revenues in a compensation fund for victims and their families.
Click to expand...

So you think taxes stifle growth?
 
Some random thoughts:

Regardless of whatever his race/affiliation/motive, this guy's actions are reprehensible.

People close to these shooters have to know something is wrong. We need to come up with a humanitarian mechanism to get them to come forward, and we need to treat those who are ill with compassion to keep them coming back. Lanzas mother was a perfect example. She knew her son was mentally ill so she encouraged him to play online FPS games and took him shooting. That should not be anyone's answer.

Something is causing people to flip out more than in the past. We need to invest major intellectual and monetary resources to figure out what is causing it and how to stop it.

On a personal note, I am far more wary in public than I used to be. I look around for exits when out with the family and keep an eye on the door at church. It's a crazy world out there.
 
sturg33 said:
So you think taxes stifle growth?
Click to expand...

consumption of cigarettes is way down...it has been looked at pretty carefully...there is a causal relationship...raise the price of anything high enough and people will stop buying it

if your question is a more general one about taxes, we can make it revenue neutral...cut other taxes by the same amount
 
nsacpi said:
consumption of cigarettes is way down...it has been looked at pretty carefully...there is a causal relationship...raise the price of anything high enough and people will stop buying it

if your question is a more general one about taxes, we can make it revenue neutral...cut other taxes by the same amount
Click to expand...

Or, you know, put those monies into systems of mental healthcare intervention.
 
nsacpi said:
consumption of cigarettes is way down...it has been looked at pretty carefully...there is a causal relationship...raise the price of anything high enough and people will stop buying it

if your question is a more general one about taxes, we can make it revenue neutral...cut other taxes by the same amount
Click to expand...

Oh no... I agree with you that taxes stifle growth... or higher costs stifle growth. That applies to business taxes, income taxes, and the labor market.
 
Reports are now that Kelley liked pages that were devoted to atheism. Possible motive emerging.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top