(05-25-2022, 08:05 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (05-25-2022, 08:00 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]It is, but we're all just guessing the weight of an elephant over here. FSG's guess is an extreme outlier for this particular elephant, but he gets pretty close to the truth in other cases.
Position, not guess.
I have a position on the best car for me to buy and the correct way to reinforce corners of concrete slabs. You have a position on the best car for your family and the (whatever it is in the medical field that you do).
But in areas of public policy, because we have no authority, and no plausible plan to acquire authority, we can only have guesses, not positions.
(05-25-2022, 03:33 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]A few things are still puzzling to me regarding the recent shooting.
The shooter just recently turned 18, came from a broken home and lives in a town where the median income is I'm guessing probably relatively low compared to other areas. An AR-15 is not exactly "cheap" as far as the price let alone getting extra accessories such as extra magazines and ammunition.
1. Just how was an 18 year old "drop-out" from high school able to afford to legally buy not just one, but two rifles along with the accessories and ammunition? As the owner of an undisclosed number of AR-15 rifles myself, I know that these things aren't exactly cheap.
2. He does have a history of "mental illness". From what I understand, he was routinely "picked on" as a young child because of a speech impediment and did some self-mutilation on himself according to past acquaintances. It appears to me that he never received any professional help via some kind of doctor or therapist. How exactly is this kind of thing supposed to be reported under so-called "red flag laws"?
What change in current law would prevent something like this from happening again? The problem isn't the gun, the problem is mental health. I blame lack of education and social media.
(05-25-2022, 03:42 PM)Cleatwood Wrote: [ -> ] (05-25-2022, 03:33 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]A few things are still puzzling to me regarding the recent shooting.
The shooter just recently turned 18, came from a broken home and lives in a town where the median income is I'm guessing probably relatively low compared to other areas. An AR-15 is not exactly "cheap" as far as the price let alone getting extra accessories such as extra magazines and ammunition.
1. Just how was an 18 year old "drop-out" from high school able to afford to legally buy not just one, but two rifles along with the accessories and ammunition? As the owner of an undisclosed number of AR-15 rifles myself, I know that these things aren't exactly cheap.
2. He does have a history of "mental illness". From what I understand, he was routinely "picked on" as a young child because of a speech impediment and did some self-mutilation on himself according to past acquaintances. It appears to me that he never received any professional help via some kind of doctor or therapist. How exactly is this kind of thing supposed to be reported under so-called "red flag laws"?
What change in current law would prevent something like this from happening again? The problem isn't the gun, the problem is mental health. I blame lack of education and social media.
Get a credit card or cash advance considering he had no interest in ever paying back the money.
We are talking about $2,000 plus for the 1, not sure what the other one was. Then he also has a truck. I'm guessing there may have been some other criminal things happening.
Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk
(05-23-2022, 05:56 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]Isn't there a broad spectrum between
a) No one should ever be allowed to own a firearm, and
b) Absolutely anyone should be allowed to own any sort of weapon and carry it anywhere.
Don't we need to draw a line somewhere?
There are already numerous lines drawn between the two.
The problem with firearm laws is they are written by the people you may need to protect yourself from.
I would bet that everyone could agree that mentally ill people shouldn't own guns. The problem becomes who decides that. Doctors who just went along with whatever the government told them to do without questioning it? Government who has shown many times that they don't care and will do whatever they want to keep power?
There isn't a good answer as the people in these positions are not good. If you have a trustworthy person who isn't corruptible then that would be fine but we know that doesn't exist in numbers required.
Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk
(05-25-2022, 10:02 PM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ]The problem with firearm laws is they are written by the people you may need to protect yourself from.
I would bet that everyone could agree that mentally ill people shouldn't own guns. The problem becomes who decides that. Doctors who just went along with whatever the government told them to do without questioning it? Government who has shown many times that they don't care and will do whatever they want to keep power?
There isn't a good answer as the people in these positions are not good. If you have a trustworthy person who isn't corruptible then that would be fine but we know that doesn't exist in numbers required.
Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk
I disagree. Mentally ill people are usually not dangerous. Rather, you need to pinpoint the people who are having violent thoughts or having a crisis, which is what red flag laws try to do.
Also, it's obvious that a disproportionate number of these incidents are men under the age of 21 with no military affiliation. Raising the age to own a firearm may be an easy policy change to achieve.
(05-25-2022, 08:31 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (05-25-2022, 08:19 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]I have a position on the best car for me to buy and the correct way to reinforce corners of concrete slabs. You have a position on the best car for your family and the (whatever it is in the medical field that you do).
But in areas of public policy, because we have no authority, and no plausible plan to acquire authority, we can only have guesses, not positions.
Nonsense.
To riff on Bunny, your opinion, or my opinion, on gun policy, is about as relevant to the US as my opinion on how the board should be moderated is to you.
(05-25-2022, 11:21 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (05-25-2022, 10:02 PM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ]The problem with firearm laws is they are written by the people you may need to protect yourself from.
I would bet that everyone could agree that mentally ill people shouldn't own guns. The problem becomes who decides that. Doctors who just went along with whatever the government told them to do without questioning it? Government who has shown many times that they don't care and will do whatever they want to keep power?
There isn't a good answer as the people in these positions are not good. If you have a trustworthy person who isn't corruptible then that would be fine but we know that doesn't exist in numbers required.
Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk
I disagree. Mentally ill people are usually not dangerous. Rather, you need to pinpoint the people who are having violent thoughts or having a crisis, which is what red flag laws try to do.
Also, it's obvious that a disproportionate number of these incidents are men under the age of 21 with no military affiliation. Raising the age to own a firearm may be an easy policy change to achieve.
(05-25-2022, 08:31 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Nonsense.
To riff on Bunny, your opinion, or my opinion, on gun policy, is about as relevant to the US as my opinion on how the board should be moderated is to you.
So what, that doesn't mean it's nonexistent. Try to keep up, I know you struggle with simple concepts.
(05-25-2022, 08:35 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-23-2022, 05:56 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]Isn't there a broad spectrum between
a) No one should ever be allowed to own a firearm, and
b) Absolutely anyone should be allowed to own any sort of weapon and carry it anywhere.
Don't we need to draw a line somewhere?
No
So you would allow Bill Gates his own army?
(05-25-2022, 11:57 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ] (05-25-2022, 08:35 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]No
So you would allow Bill Gates his own army?
The answer of obviously yes.
(05-25-2022, 08:35 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-23-2022, 05:56 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]Isn't there a broad spectrum between
a) No one should ever be allowed to own a firearm, and
b) Absolutely anyone should be allowed to own any sort of weapon and carry it anywhere.
Don't we need to draw a line somewhere?
No
So you also think absolutely anyone should be allowed to own any sort of weapon and carry it anywhere? An obviously crazy person should be allowed to walk around with a fully loaded automatic weapon?
(05-25-2022, 10:02 PM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ]The problem with firearm laws is they are written by the people you may need to protect yourself from.
I would bet that everyone could agree that mentally ill people shouldn't own guns. The problem becomes who decides that. Doctors who just went along with whatever the government told them to do without questioning it? Government who has shown many times that they don't care and will do whatever they want to keep power?
There isn't a good answer as the people in these positions are not good. If you have a trustworthy person who isn't corruptible then that would be fine but we know that doesn't exist in numbers required.
Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk
Apparently, there are two people in this message board who do not agree with that.
Point of fact, Bill Gates does not have a private army, but Eric Prince had one and now it belongs to Red McCombs.
(05-26-2022, 06:37 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (05-25-2022, 08:35 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]No
So you also think absolutely anyone should be allowed to own any sort of weapon and carry it anywhere? An obviously crazy person should be allowed to walk around with a fully loaded automatic weapon?
(05-25-2022, 10:02 PM)p_rushing Wrote: [ -> ]The problem with firearm laws is they are written by the people you may need to protect yourself from.
I would bet that everyone could agree that mentally ill people shouldn't own guns. The problem becomes who decides that. Doctors who just went along with whatever the government told them to do without questioning it? Government who has shown many times that they don't care and will do whatever they want to keep power?
There isn't a good answer as the people in these positions are not good. If you have a trustworthy person who isn't corruptible then that would be fine but we know that doesn't exist in numbers required.
Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk
Apparently, there are two people in this message board who do not agree with that.
"Obviously Crazy" rapidly becomes a label attached to people for the sole purpose of restricting their rights. I mean, some of you people voted for Trump, that makes you "obviously crazy" to many people.
Private, limitless acquisition of weapons of mass destruction is an untenable position.
(05-26-2022, 10:43 AM)Lucky2Last Wrote: [ -> ]Private, limitless acquisition of weapons of mass destruction is an untenable position.
That's obviously crazy, no guns for you.
(05-26-2022, 02:49 PM)Bchbunnie4 Wrote: [ -> ] (05-26-2022, 02:42 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ]And it gets worse…
https://www.news4jax.com/news/local/2022...-confirms/
Died of grief? Is that a polite way to say suicide?
They try not to say suicide unless they're sure you meant to do it. This may have been an overdose, maybe alcohol.