To do the right thing, you might have to Die

THParent said:
None of the numbers from the CDC are clear on that point. The fact is that the country is safer now than it was 30 years ago because violent crime has decreased steadily over the last 30 years. The FBI maintains statistics that prove this. The Atlantic (a monthly magazine that is about as far left as left gets) even used the term "The Great Crime Decline" to describe it. The difference is nearly instantaneous (and often woefully inaccurate) reporting of events over the Internet. We are simply made more aware of violent encounters today than we were 30 years ago, so our collective perception is that crime is increasing and it isn't.

The folks who study this stuff (the most recent "pause" in the dropping crime rate) blame it on the pandemic and say that this will pass as the pandemic passes. There were a whole lot of people who were terrified that if they ventured outside that they would walk into a cloud of Covid-19 like it was the same as Sarin gas. When you start believing that you may be dead next week no matter what you do, it can mess with your head. Because social life on the whole was so radically destabilized, it resulted in a huge surge of violence that was temporary. As the pandemic subsides, so will the violence.
Click to expand...
.
The Atlantic is left of center for sure in the bias sentiment category …. but I would place it within 1 standard deviation of the mean (mean which is not right or left). I don’t believe that it is an extreme left publication. Major publications in general all have a Left of Center “Sentiment”.

Btw …. Anne Applebaum recently joined as a staff writer in 2020 …. and she can be as Hawkish as is hawkishly possible in some of her position pieces.
.
 
Last edited:
raimius said:
Small Team Bacsi,
You say no one is talking about a ban, yet the President keeps calling for a new AWB. Beto O'Rourke is calling for straight up confiscation of AR-15s and AK-47s (although he probably means AK derivatives). Personally, I'd consider any confiscation by type or ban on sale, transfer, or possession to be a "ban." So, I don't see how you can claim it isn't being called for. Claiming "no one wants to take your guns" when Mr. O'Rourke specifically interrupted the Uvalde press conference to do EXACTLY that, either shows a lack of knowledge or denial of reality.
Click to expand...
There is no talk about a ban on guns. As in take all their guns away.

Certainly if there was significant gun control in the US all people would not be able to own all weapons.There would be restrictions.

So if you consider any restriction or prohibition on the type of weapon or magazine you can legally purchase then in your view yes there would be a ban.
 
THParent said:
None of the numbers from the CDC are clear on that point. The fact is that the country is safer now than it was 30 years ago because violent crime has decreased steadily over the last 30 years. The FBI maintains statistics that prove this. The Atlantic (a monthly magazine that is about as far left as left gets) even used the term "The Great Crime Decline" to describe it. The difference is nearly instantaneous (and often woefully inaccurate) reporting of events over the Internet. We are simply made more aware of violent encounters today than we were 30 years ago, so our collective perception is that crime is increasing and it isn't.

The folks who study this stuff (the most recent "pause" in the dropping crime rate) blame it on the pandemic and say that this will pass as the pandemic passes. There were a whole lot of people who were terrified that if they ventured outside that they would walk into a cloud of Covid-19 like it was the same as Sarin gas. When you start believing that you may be dead next week no matter what you do, it can mess with your head. Because social life on the whole was so radically destabilized, it resulted in a huge surge of violence that was temporary. As the pandemic subsides, so will the violence.
Click to expand...

Actually CDC is very clear on the numbers. The issue is——-do we consider 45,000 gun deaths in the US every year a big deal or not.

Especially since the majority of those deaths are suicide. And I for one think it’s socialism :) for the govt to tell me that I can’t end my life if I want to. None of the govts business IMO.

The fact is if these very young kids all in one school, had been older youth , in a city or 3 somewhere in the US , none of us would have cared enough to start a thread.

This is only news because they were so young and innocent and the police were so slow to act. Otherwise it’s a typical weekend in the US.
 
Being willing to disagree without being disagreeable is one of several things that are important in a civilized society. My confidence is high that after The Late Unpleasantness™ of the last two years is over, we'll get back there.

The only thing standing in the way would be a recession akin to the housing bust/market crash in 2008 or a 2nd Great Depression. I am well aware that hope isn't a tactic, but nonetheless hope that doesn't happen.
 
THParent said:
The only thing standing in the way would be a recession akin to the housing bust/market crash in 2008 or a 2nd Great Depression. I am well aware that hope isn't a tactic, but nonetheless hope that doesn't happen.
Click to expand...
Hope... it is what keeping a dying man fighting. Hope keeps the world spinning, even when the axis is broken. It is not a tactic but a necessary virtue to a world living and breathing on the edge -- or rather a two sided bladed of conflict and growth. Hope is the last thing ever lost. You are keen to hope for something more, it is the great catalyst!
 
.
I believe in Love and Hope … makes me reminisce … to the back of the stack … Harrison


The sliding sound from the Stratocaster sounds like it’s coming from a Dobro …
.
 
Last edited:
Pluto said:
Guns are a right! 2A!"
Click to expand...

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER

The case affirmed that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess firearms independent of service in a state militia and to use firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense within the home.

Justice Scalia, writing for the majority on Page 54, Section III of the Opinion:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
 
Dr. Strange Love said:
Hmmm … when all of us head into our twilight years?

When all of us head into our twilight years, the right to operate an on-road motor vehicle can be taken away if we are no longer in full control of our faculties …. Family members etc. have to take these steps on our behalf all the time everywhere in this Good’ol USofA.

Why should the right to operate a weapon — when anyone of us is not quite all there — be treated any differently than taking away our on-road vehicle privileges?
.
Click to expand...
As long as there is due process involved I'm fine with that. You can't just do it on someone's say so.
 
thehill.com

Multiple victims reported in ‘mass shooting’ in Maryland town

Officials reported there were multiple victims following what one lawmaker described as a “mass shooting” in the Maryland town of Smithsburg on Thursday. “We are actively monitoring the…
thehill.com thehill.com

Worth a stand-alone thread? Hardly.

If we start a new thread for every mass shooting in the US those threads would overwhelm all other threads.

.
 
so I got to wondering exactly how can we drastically cut down on gun violence in the US including these mass shootings at our schools.

I am now officially more worried about the grandkids in schools and the teachers in the family than any in the SA at present.

How is it that gun violence seems to grow, yesterday another citizen was killed by police trying to forcible enter another school.

How is it that we made so much crushing outstanding success against a pleasurable, addictive, popular activity like tobacco and smoking which had billions of dollars of political and business and lobbying clout determined to protect tobacco interests. And it was very addictive as well.

It was not the body counts the 400,000 dead every year. And it was not mental health discussions or PSAs on TV nor was it age restrictions on buying cigs——which did nothing.

It was the fact that smoking stinks. People hated to be around smokers because they constantly smelled them and the smoke. It was the stink more than the 400,000 dead that made our job easier with more and more public support.

We don’t get that type of feedback with these kids and these mass killings. We only read about the carnage. These is no stink we have to deal with.

Pictures , uncensored pictures , of exactly what these kids looked like in the moments after they had been shot and killed. In every paper in the US front page.

Make our citizens actually look and see not just read about or hear about this carnage.

Make us who only post on threads and wring our hands and do nothing tangible to fix the problem to actually see the problem.

You want action that will help keep the next class room safe then show exactly what happened to this class room of kids.

Overnight you will start to see significant and meaningful changes in the gun violence issue.

There was a reason the military in WW2 forbid these types of graphic pictures early in the war.

They did not want the US public to see the damage being done to their kids. They felt those pictures would be counterproductive to the war effort and the future carnage to come.

Front page of the NYTs showing the damage done to these kids and teachers and we would start to see safer schools and work places and positive action on gun violence at once.

Congress and the WH would be forced to act.
 
Small Team Bacsi said:
There is no talk about a ban on guns. As in take all their guns away.

Certainly if there was significant gun control in the US all people would not be able to own all weapons.There would be restrictions.

So if you consider any restriction or prohibition on the type of weapon or magazine you can legally purchase then in your view yes there would be a ban.
Click to expand...
This is a strange way to view the issue, imo. Basically, you are arguing there is no issue so long as one can go buy a single-shot .22.
If Congress outlawed all SUVs, or all abortions except for in the first month, or all speech except 1 page printed broadsides...etc...I'm pretty sure we would call them "bans."

The 2nd Amendment isn't about the right to hunt.
Tench Coxe said:
Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
Click to expand...
 
I don't think the complete ban people represent the gun control position any better than the guys carrying AR15s to political rallies were representing all gun owners. The solutions have to come from the middle 80% of the population where a lot of less extreme measures can be agreed on.
 
Yes arguing about the word ”ban” vs the word “restriction” is what we really need following a mass killing of children. And right before the next mass killing of school children. And the school killings that will come in the months after.

How about some suggestions on how to reduce the carnage instead of debates about definitions? And no that does not mean useless talk about mental health. (That is an excuse for no action not a plan for action)

I have made mine——pictures uncensored pictures in the news papers of the horrible damage done to these kids. Force the US public to see . Many of those kids had to be identified by the clothes that had worn to school.

But you know who would fight that the most——those that want to sell more guns more magazines more rounds.

Just like the tobacco companies fought us at every turn.

But smoking in the US went from 50% of adults smoking daily to under 13% and there was no need to ban tobacco or cigs.

Less debates about definitions more concrete action.
 
Small Team Bacsi said:
Yes arguing about the word ”ban” vs the word “restriction” is what we really need following a mass killing of children. And right before the next mass killing of school children. And the school killings that will come in the months after.

How about some suggestions on how to reduce the carnage instead of debates about definitions? And no that does not mean useless talk about mental health. (That is an excuse for no action not a plan for action)

I have made mine——pictures uncensored pictures in the news papers of the horrible damage done to these kids. Force the US public to see . Many of those kids had to be identified by the clothes that had worn to school.

But you know who would fight that the most——those that want to sell more guns more magazines more rounds.

Just like the tobacco companies fought us at every turn.

But smoking in the US went from 50% of adults smoking daily to under 13% and there was no need to ban tobacco or cigs.

Less debates about definitions more concrete action.
Click to expand...

I agree …. Force everyone to stare at the pictures of the Exit wounds of the 19 children and 2 teachers of Uvalde.
.
 
Write to the news organizations in support of the "no notoriety" concept. Fund mental health. Fund school (and other public venue) security. Make sure the cops have the right TTPs. (Allow lawsuits in cases of extreme failure). Modify lockdown drills to better comply with "run, hide, fight" (too many skip step 1). Actually prosecute those who lie on and fail their firearms background checks. Come up with a better "red flag law" that has due process and doesn't just take 1 kind of weapon and call it a day. Prosecute felon in possession cases for violent criminals.
See? Plenty of options that don't ban/restrict firearms for the non-deranged people.
 
www.aol.com

Officers never 'hesitated,' Uvalde school police chief says in first extended comments on shooting

The Texas police chief who has faced intense scrutiny over his handling of the elementary school massacre in Uvalde offered his first extended comments on the shooting in a story published Thursday by the Texas Tribune, telling the outlet that officers never “hesitated, even for a moment, to put...
www.aol.com www.aol.com

A much different picture ( accurate or not) of what was happening on the ground , than the first reporting
 
One thing that seems clear to me is that the first responders need more breeching equipment to be able to quickly gain access to locked spaces.
 
Last edited:
raimius said:
Write to the news organizations in support of the "no notoriety" concept. Fund mental health. Fund school (and other public venue) security. Make sure the cops have the right TTPs. (Allow lawsuits in cases of extreme failure). Modify lockdown drills to better comply with "run, hide, fight" (too many skip step 1). Actually prosecute those who lie on and fail their firearms background checks. Come up with a better "red flag law" that has due process and doesn't just take 1 kind of weapon and call it a day. Prosecute felon in possession cases for violent criminals.
See? Plenty of options that don't ban/restrict firearms for the non-deranged people.
Click to expand...
As I said the other day, rather than significant gun control, the supporters of no actual gun control would talk about funding mental health and swat teams in every school.

Exactly like the tobacco companies saying no restriction on tobacco but money for anti smoking health education.

Talking about curing mental health issues for a nation is like saying as soon as we have world peace. And finding all the depressed, angry, crazy people who do not self identify as depressed, angry or crazy on a gun application——good luck.

A national background check system? A national significant wait to purchase law? Any limit what so ever on the type of guns or magazine's or a higher buying age than we have today?

Anything at all the NRA might find objectionable?

And here is the thing about angry crazy people. You won’t find them self identifying on a gun application. And the shrinks don’t have a complete list.

To find them you will need to monitor the Internet.

It’s the Internet where you will find and angry crazy people taking about attacking schools, attacking the federal or state or local govt, talking about killing fellow Americans in the coming civil or race war.

The Internet is full of crazy. And someone said yesterday the police know ol about these shooters——hardly. But the Internet sure does.

Have Internet history checked before being able to buy a gun and you will find your future mass killers.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top