OT: Arizona Coyotes Lounge XIII -- Summertime Blues

[Toadie]

Really depends on how you see and value strong. To me strong is:

• Seeing others before yourself
• Sharing more then you take
• Finding solutions without harm. Remeber most everyone who harms someone believes they are right
• Speaking up for what you believe in but listening to others

 

[rt]

All that laws can do is reduce probability. That's why we take our belts and shoes off at airports now. It's why old people and drunks get their driver's licenses taken away. Neither of those things are going to stop someone who disregards the law, but they cut down on the likelihood of bad things happening.

I'm talking about high profile spree killings. Vegas, Orlando, San Bernardino, Charleston, Washington Navy Yard, Sandy Hook, Aurora.

Spell out the law you would propose to prevent those specific massacres.

 

[ClassLessCoyote]

All that laws can do is reduce probability. That's why we take our belts and shoes off at airports now. It's why old people and drunks get their driver's licenses taken away. Neither of those things are going to stop someone who disregards the law, but they cut down on the likelihood of bad things happening.



There is absolutely no strength at all in taking the position that "**** happens so suck it up you libtards." The truly weak are the people who entrench themselves in an ideology with no regard for context or compromise. It takes great strength of character and mind to pursue solutions that might challenge opinions.

Except I never called anyone here a libtard or a fascist. BTW, the best way to cut down on crime in general is to bring back the teaching of something known as self-control.

 

[The Feckless Puck]

BTW, the best way to cut down on crime in general is to bring back the teaching of something known as self-control.

Bring it back from where? It certainly hasn't gone out of vogue for me or anyone I know. The thing is, a lack of self-control is not what generates crime unless you're talking impulse crimes or crimes of passion. The vast majority of crimes occur because of a lack of ethics and consideration for other people. Eric Harris, one of the two killers at Columbine High School, meticulously plotted and documented his plan for over a year because he wanted the world to know precisely why he was doing what he was doing. Dylann Roof has expressed the same absolute lack of remorse and concern for others in his ongoing legal resolution. From what's being reported about what little we know regarding Stephen Paddock, his process that led to the Vegas shootings was as carefully crafted as a military operation.

So while gun controls of some sort would help mitigate risk, societal changes would also go a long way towards preventing things like this happening. Ironically, though, we have recently entered into an age where dialogue has fallen out of fashion in favor of demagoguery, where naked greed and ambition have been codified as "presidential," and where it seems as though people believe that the purpose of our Constitution and legal system is to protect one class of Americans at the expense of others. As long as that toxic soup exists, we'll have more of this kind of tragedy.

On the subject of self-control, though, I know a lot of gun owners, most of them ex-military. One guy I know who was in a Ranger unit calls his trigger finger "my safety," implying that the gun won't fire unless he makes a conscious, willful decision to fire it. It's a very manly thing to proclaim, but the only reason I believe him at all is because of the absolute rigor with which he was trained to use those weapons. Military boot camp weapons training makes the kinds of gun controls advocated in mainstream society look anemic by comparison. It is that training that has prevented him from using his weapon as dispute resolution or worse. So why isn't that sort of training a good idea for the rank and file citizen? Because the NRA says it would violate the 2nd Amendment.

 

[XX]

The violent crime rate was cut in half in the 90s without any meaningful reform, gun control or otherwise. Crime is socioeconomic in nature. When people able to attain an education, have healthcare (including access to mental health resources), have social mobility, aren't incarcerated over minor offenses, are able to be gainfully employed etc... they tend to lead happy, peaceful lives. The focus needs to be on improving society as a whole. That has historically been the thing that produces the change we desire so much, not poorly thought out legislation targeting any one thing.

On the subject of self-control, though, I know a lot of gun owners, most of them ex-military. One guy I know who was in a Ranger unit calls his trigger finger "my safety," implying that the gun won't fire unless he makes a conscious, willful decision to fire it. It's a very manly thing to proclaim, but the only reason I believe him at all is because of the absolute rigor with which he was trained to use those weapons. Military boot camp weapons training makes the kinds of gun controls advocated in mainstream society look anemic by comparison. It is that training that has prevented him from using his weapon as dispute resolution or worse. So why isn't that sort of training a good idea for the rank and file citizen? Because the NRA says it would violate the 2nd Amendment.

Your military friend (if he exists) is an idiot and not a good example of responsible ownership. A safety engages a mechanical disconnect in most firearms that makes it several orders of magnitude safer to handle. To the point where most everyone in the military is trained to engage the safety when not actively engaging a target or sweeping through an area where the fastest possible reaction is required. Negligent and accidental discharges are a thing, even among the highly trained, especially under duress. I question his existence because you basically just paraphrased the movie Blackhawk Down.

We don't regulate firearms anywhere near as much as we do cars. It's pathetic. Go to your local range and witness how many people are totally unqualified to be handling firearms, then realize there's nothing stopping them from buying one (or many) in most states beyond a simple background check. There's no licensing requirement, no requirement that you have proper storage, no handling training and ongoing skills maintenance requirement, no training on the laws and use of force scenarios etc... We don't even track transactions of firearms as well as we do cars. It's a compete joke. I despise the NRA as a gun owner and I absolutely hate that the loudest, dumbest owners whine so fiercely over 'muh freedums' anytime basic measures - many of which have proven successful in several states - are proposed by legislators. I fear nothing will change because both sides are so entrenched in their binary ideals that there's no real chance for compromise at this point.

To address RT's point: In a free society, nothing guarantees safety. But you can improve your odds. Let's do that.

 

[BlazingBlueAnt]

The problem is that if training is to be required it needs to be completely free and extremely easily to access, which means someones gotta pay for it. Having it not be free will be shot down because it will be seen as akin to a poll tax. You can't be charged money in order to exercise your constitutional rights, that's been established in the past.

 

[MIGs Dog]

Laws don't stop people in general from committing crimes and even the most law abiding citizens won't be able to follow all of the laws on the books due to how ignorant those people are on the subject of law. They're plenty of ways for people to get guns illegally and those who want to kill others will find a way with whatever means necessary to take out as many lives as possible. Did the laws on driving a big rig stop the terrorist in Nice France from running people over with a big truck? No! Did the laws and regulations involving flying a plane stop the terrorists from attacking the Pentagon or the WTC? NO! What gun control laws will do is make it harder for those who can handle a gun right will be at a disadvantage towards getting a gun.

There already are restrictions on what types of firearms you can obtain. All rational people are talking about is redefining what is permitted and not permitted.

Because some violate the law is not a reason to not have laws.

 

[MIGs Dog]

The problem is that if training is to be required it needs to be completely free and extremely easily to access, which means someones gotta pay for it. Having it not be free will be shot down because it will be seen as akin to a poll tax. You can't be charged money in order to exercise your constitutional rights, that's been established in the past.

Not sure that's true. States already charge fees for concealed carry, and many require training at the applicants expense.

 

[MIGs Dog]

...In a free society, nothing guarantees safety...

True. Applies to all societies, free or otherwise.

 

[The Feckless Puck]

I question his existence because you basically just paraphrased the movie Blackhawk Down.

What you're referencing from either the book or the movie Black Hawk Down is an anecdote about a Delta Force operator who told a Ranger officer who reprimanded him for carrying a weapon with the safety off in a mess hall, "This is my safe," while holding up his finger. Maybe that's where my friend got the line, but it's not the same point he was making. To my knowledge he doesn't go around carrying guns with the safety off. His point is that the danger or safety of his weapon as a general rule came down to his own discipline. It's something I've heard from several other people I know who own firearms - perhaps not in the same words, but conveying the same message, that their training and experience with weapons renders the guns absolutely safe and almost completely unlikely to be involved in some sort of accident or worse.

And I completely agree with you that that kind of thinking is idiotic.

To address RT's point: In a free society, nothing guarantees safety. But you can improve your odds. Let's do that.

And I agree with you on this too.

 

[rt]

The violent crime rate was cut in half in the 90s without any meaningful reform, gun control or otherwise. Crime is socioeconomic in nature. When people able to attain an education, have healthcare (including access to mental health resources), have social mobility, aren't incarcerated over minor offenses, are able to be gainfully employed etc... they tend to lead happy, peaceful lives. The focus needs to be on improving society as a whole. That has historically been the thing that produces the change we desire so much, not poorly thought out legislation targeting any one thing.



Your military friend (if he exists) is an idiot and not a good example of responsible ownership. A safety engages a mechanical disconnect in most firearms that makes it several orders of magnitude safer to handle. To the point where most everyone in the military is trained to engage the safety when not actively engaging a target or sweeping through an area where the fastest possible reaction is required. Negligent and accidental discharges are a thing, even among the highly trained, especially under duress. I question his existence because you basically just paraphrased the movie Blackhawk Down.

We don't regulate firearms anywhere near as much as we do cars. It's pathetic. Go to your local range and witness how many people are totally unqualified to be handling firearms, then realize there's nothing stopping them from buying one (or many) in most states beyond a simple background check. There's no licensing requirement, no requirement that you have proper storage, no handling training and ongoing skills maintenance requirement, no training on the laws and use of force scenarios etc... We don't even track transactions of firearms as well as we do cars. It's a compete joke. I despise the NRA as a gun owner and I absolutely hate that the loudest, dumbest owners whine so fiercely over 'muh freedums' anytime basic measures - many of which have proven successful in several states - are proposed by legislators. I fear nothing will change because both sides are so entrenched in their binary ideals that there's no real chance for compromise at this point.

To address RT's point: In a free society, nothing guarantees safety. But you can improve your odds. Let's do that.

I agree with your post. I need to again clarify what I'm saying.

I am not talking about generalized deaths caused by guns. I'm not talking about robberies, suicides, or accidents. I'm speaking specifically about spree killings. Large scale massacres planned in advance by individuals so inclined. There is no law that will prevent this. Odds improvement is a discussion for general day to day gun violence. I entered this discussion because Jake said it's time for politicians to solve this problem. The problem of spree killings like we saw in Vegas and Orlando and San Bernardino, Charleston, Aurora or at Sandy Hook. I'm speaking only to this specific kind of atrocity. Laws cannot prevent this.

 

[HerrDonut]

It is that training that has prevented him from using his weapon as dispute resolution or worse.

I like to talk things through, reach a middle ground or compromise, maybe throw some rock-paper-scissors in there, when resolving disputes. Weapons need not apply.

 

[MIGs Dog]

Wow...NRA now says devices allowing full auto should be regulated.

 

[MIGs Dog]

...their training and experience with weapons renders the guns absolutely safe and almost completely unlikely to be involved in some sort of accident or worse.

Maybe, but that only applies when it's in their hands. How many kids shoot themselves or someone else when they pick up mommy or daddy's gun? Totally disagree with those that think they need to carry with a round in the chamber, which if they didn't would prevent most of these "accidental" discharges.

 

[XX]

Laws cannot prevent this.

They can't 'prevent' this in the sense that they guarantee safety. But you can take preventative measures by improving your odds via common sense legislation. Things like this will always happen, what we want is to reduce the rate at which they happen, which requires a holistic approach.

 

[The Feckless Puck]

Wow...NRA now says devices allowing full auto should be regulated.

It's interesting that this statement from the NRA is basically a piece of political spin doctoring (see the jab at the Obama administration and the noncommittal phraseology about asking BAFTE to review the subject rather than specifically call for regulation). And yet, if you look at the responses to the tweet, some NRA members are freaking the hell out and canceling their membership.

 

[Toadie]

HerrDoughnut I bow to you and you give me hope

NRA Our mission is Strengthening Americans scares the crap out of me.. Guns equal strength makes me cringe with sorrow. in 2013 USA citizens spent 14.7 billion dollars on guns and ammo. The cost to end world hunger is 30 billion dollars per year...

 

[RABBIT]

I agree with your post. I need to again clarify what I'm saying.

I am not talking about generalized deaths caused by guns. I'm not talking about robberies, suicides, or accidents. I'm speaking specifically about spree killings. Large scale massacres planned in advance by individuals so inclined. There is no law that will prevent this. Odds improvement is a discussion for general day to day gun violence. I entered this discussion because Jake said it's time for politicians to solve this problem. The problem of spree killings like we saw in Vegas and Orlando and San Bernardino, Charleston, Aurora or at Sandy Hook. I'm speaking only to this specific kind of atrocity. Laws cannot prevent this.

They can't 'prevent' this in the sense that they guarantee safety. But you can take preventative measures by improving your odds via common sense legislation. Things like this will always happen, what we want is to reduce the rate at which they happen, which requires a holistic approach.

As a gun owner I am aware that no matter how many regulations you put in place, criminals/sick individuals WILL find a way. That being said, in light of everything over the last few years, i could now get behind the idea of regulating assault rifles. I have never been in a position where i have even had to entertain the idea of anything more than my 9mm or my shotgun. EDIT: Knock on wood.

 

[rt]

They can't 'prevent' this in the sense that they guarantee safety. But you can take preventative measures by improving your odds via common sense legislation. Things like this will always happen, what we want is to reduce the rate at which they happen, which requires a holistic approach.

Be more specific. What are some common sense laws that would have prevented these attacks? What do these preventative measures look like in the form of legislation. I'm not asking you to draft a bill, but give me some cliff's notes. Bullet points (no pun intended).

 

[rt]

The problem of daily gun violence and the problem of massive spree killings are very different to me. The former needs to be addressed and the latter simply can't be.

 

[The Feckless Puck]

The problem of daily gun violence and the problem of massive spree killings are very different to me. The former needs to be addressed and the latter simply can't be.

Well, the latter CAN be, but it's going to take more than just gun control. Spree killings are generally performed by people who consider them to be twisted public statements. I mentioned Columbine upthread - Eric Harris planned that event specifically to be bigger than Waco and Oklahoma City. And many of the spree killers since Columbine cited Harris and Klebold as "inspirations." As much as we live in a society that romanticizes gun possession, so too do we live in a society where the media latches onto tragedies of this type like red meat to wolves. Tragedy sells, and as long as it does, the media won't stop stirring the pot when these things happen, which means that the people who commit these acts will continue to have their audience.

 

[XX]

Be more specific. What are some common sense laws that would have prevented these attacks? What do these preventative measures look like in the form of legislation. I'm not asking you to draft a bill, but give me some cliff's notes. Bullet points (no pun intended).

Nothing would 'prevent' such sprees and meet your all or nothing test. You could only reduce the chance of them occurring by eliminating the proliferation of firearms to people that shouldn't have them (by making them harder/less convenient to own) while also offering up more opportunities for someone to be flagged by law enforcement for suspicious behavior. We literally don't track shit when it comes to firearms unless you own a very specific class of them. Funnily enough, the NFA has a stellar record when it comes to crime. That's because you need to jump through numerous hoops to own one of these items (like registered machine guns or suppressors) and you're constantly on the radar of local law enforcement and the ATF. Penalties for violations generally involve going straight to prison. It cuts the people who shouldn't own such things down to practically zero.

The existing laws for non NFA items basically don't exist. For instance, this guy acquired an absurd amount of guns in a short period of time, something like 33 in little over a year. If you had a waiting period that was consistent across states and enforced at the federal level, that might have helped. Right now, you can buy a gun with cash and it's never notarized or tracked aka the gunshow loophole, so he could dodge the waiting period. Close that. If you had a storage requirement when you cross a threshold of a certain number of guns, he would have popped up on the radar then as well. This dude also had a ton of suspicious transactions flagged on his bank accounts. If you were able to cross reference the two, he might have been on the radar. The devices he used to turn his guns automatic were specifically made to evade existing NFA laws, so ban those. They have no purpose other than being a dangerous range toy, and most ranges will not let you use them for that very reason. It goes on.

You say you're not a gun guy... are you aware of just how little oversight the entire industry has (save for a few states like NY and CA)? I wasn't kidding about cars being a much better regulated industry. You can walk into a shop right now in AZ and buy a handgun with an ID, cash, and a five minute phone call background check. You can then carry that gun on you (concealed!) without any licensing or training at all. Even Texas requires you to demonstrate an ability to shoot straight for a CCW. Or you can just buy one in a personal transaction for cash and you won't be in violation of any laws, and it will never be noted by the state or federal government. I grew up in a house that owned firearms and I'm an owner myself, yet I think all of this is completely absurd. It makes going to the range dangerous when the bar to ownership is so low. I refuse to shoot anywhere where the ROs are not on top of things. We're not even doing the bare minimum in terms of laws right now in most states. I don't agree with type bans or over the top restriction, but we can do so much better than what's on the books right now.

 

[MIGs Dog]

On a lighter note, here are the 2018 RnR HOF nominees:

• Bon Jovi
• Kate Bush
• The Cars
• Depeche Mode
• Dire Straits
• Eurythmics
• J. Geils Band
• Judas Priest
• LL Cool J
• MC5
• The Meters
• Moody Blues
• Radiohead
• Rage Against the Machine
• Rufus featuring Chaka Khan
• Nina Simone
• Sister Rosetta Tharpe
• Link Wray
• The Zombies

I'm not up on many of these acts, but I approve of The Cars, Judas Priest, and Rage making the cut. Not only very popular, but IMO their music was very influential. If it's a popularity contest, Bon Jovi should probably be in as well.

The HOF has a history of inducting some crap acts, but what do I know.

P.S. Radiohead most overrated on the list.

 

[BlazingBlueAnt]

As a gun owner I am aware that no matter how many regulations you put in place, criminals/sick individuals WILL find a way. That being said, in light of everything over the last few years, i could now get behind the idea of regulating assault rifles. I have never been in a position where i have even had to entertain the idea of anything more than my 9mm or my shotgun. EDIT: Knock on wood.

Assault rifles are highly regulated, they cost like 20k+

 

[MIGs Dog]

Assault rifles are highly regulated, they cost like 20k+

um...no. what do you consider an assault rifle?

https://grabagun.com/firearms/ar-15-ar10-and-other-ar/complete-ar-rifles.html?dir=asc&order=price