Welcome to Thunderdome

Yeah but think of this imagery of an Assault Rifle-15 shooting up a bunch of school children.

TheCatt wrote: We have a McVeigh a week in gun violence deaths (excluding suicides).

There are a lot of lies in gun stats. Well, not in the stats, but in how they're presented.

For example: "The U.S. is #1 among high income countries for gun deaths." True, but how many of those other high income countries have banned guns? That's not discussed. It's also not discussed why they still have significant numbers of gun related deaths.

Another example: When someone is killed by a firearm in this country, the #1 reason, by a lot, is suicide. However, people with an agenda like to simply give the total number including suicides, which is dishonest.

Another example: All law enforcement related shootings are considered homicides and included in the number. So are all shootings done in self-defense. So are all accidental shootings.

You can go back through this very chain for previous breakdowns of the actual numbers and the prime demographics for victims (young black men living in urban areas and who have criminal records). Handguns are also, far and away, the primary murder weapon in gun related violence. Truth be told, the folks being killed at festivals and malls by rifles are NOT the norm. They are the exception.

So when we ban "assault rifles", where will you stand when the shootings continue via handgun?

TheCatt wrote: So we don't need a drinking age? Or smoking age? Or drunk driving laws? Where are you going with this? Do people have a right to automatic weapons? Does that right mean no regulations?

Do we need a drinking age? Germany's is much, much lower and their alcoholism rate is also much lower. Why is there a smoking age? Technically, it's there because we don't think children can make good choices, and these laws stand in stark contrast to other stances of the political left (Children are too uninformed to choose to drink or smoke, but they can certainly make decisions about their sexuality?), which is both interesting and par for the course.

Why wouldn't people have a right to automatic weapons? Seriously. Strip away everything else going on in the country and look at it from a purely Constitutional view. Is an individual allowed to do what they want to do AS LONG AS THEY DON'T HURT SOMEONE ELSE or do we intentionally take away rights "for the greater good"?

That's not a judgement or statement, but a serious question. Don't apply "yeah buts" or anything. Just answer from a strictly Constitutional viewpoint and pretend there's one guy living in the whole country and he wants to buy an RPG to shoot just for fun. Should he be allowed to do that?

This question will also address stuff like this one:

Troy wrote: I think we can all agree firing into a melee of small children and 30-50 feral hogs requires at minimum, a semi automatic rifle. Grenades too if you don’t mind messing up your landscaping.

Not picking on Troy AT ALL, but this is a pretty typical argument for gun control. You don't need an AK-47 to defend your home. And that is 100% factual.

You know what I do need an AK-47 for? Protection from an overreaching government. Not every standoff with the government has been cults or crazy right wingers on the wrong side of the law. The fact that this reason always gets scoffed at by the left of the political spectrum makes it all the more concerning.

Not to get too over-the-top, but let's say your town has a civil breakdown, which has been known to happen. You're trapped with your family and a mob is approaching. I'd much rather have a rifle than a handgun in that situation. Ridiculous scenario in our current society? Absolutely. But no more ridiculous than the mocking scenarios of anti-gun folks.

And one thing that always, always bugs me is that the people who are constantly trying to take away my other rights and my privacy are the same ones who want to take away my guns. They also happen to be the same people blaming me for all the world's ills. Those same people who are constantly pretending that ALL people don't suck.
If you're wondering that strawman, bigoted tweet is getting reported as fact.

Why is the MSM all over it when the shooter is a white male with even a hint of right wing leanings, but when the shooter, like in Dayton, is a left winger that doesn't get talked about? He just gets classified as "full of hate".

Here's an image with ignored facts.


How many of those weapons do you think were obtained legally? Isn't it interesting that so many people of color are on there, but we don't really hear about them? Maybe it's because their victims are also people of color? I wonder what that implies...?

TheCatt wrote: Sure. Give them 20 years, and maybe they'll get there. The progress in the past 10 years has been slow.

It has hasn't it? I think they're working on finding the proper materials, other than plastic, and how to distribute them like printer ink.

TheCatt wrote: This reinforces my point about barriers. Very few people have that proper training + practice.

Not true at all. First of all, anyone can go to a range and easily teach themselves. Secondly, anyone with a computer can get free training all day, everyday according to moron politicians blaming this on video games.

MURDER SIMULATORS!!!



Call me crazy, but there are a lot of reasons that these mass shootings are becoming more frequent and legal access to guns, while a part of it, is not the end all, be all solution. As such, we're wasting a lot of time and energy arguing about a tool rather than figuring out the reason behind the attacks.

I know you don't believe this, but there are people who truly believe a gun ban will 100% end all of these shootings overnight. They're short sighted and ignorant of what a full on gun ban would truly mean.

And to clarify, I am 100% in favor of stricter gun laws, but not in favor of an outright ban.

TheCatt wrote: Yeah. You can still drive at 16, but it's now a provisional license with all sorts of restrictions until you are 18. Like you can't have a car full of teenagers and some other shit. You have to have a leaner's permit for a full year prior, you have to log 60 hours of driving with your parent, can only drive by yourself from 5am to 9pm. Admittedly, teen drivers do stupid fucking things, speaking from experience.

Pretty sure we have the carload of teens thing as well. Teen drivers DO do some dumb shit. I've already been talking to my oldest daughter about how guys will put her life in danger to try and impress her.

(I've been insanely busy at work this week, so this post was a work in progress for at least two days. Sorry if it's scattered.)

Leisher wrote: For example: "The U.S. is #1 among high income countries for gun deaths." True, but how many of those other high income countries have banned guns? That's not discussed.

Most of them. Everyone discusses the high amounts of gun control elsewhere saying "We need gun control like they do".

Leisher wrote: Just answer from a strictly Constitutional viewpoint and pretend there's one guy living in the whole country and he wants to buy an RPG to shoot just for fun. Should he be allowed to do that?

If he's one guy, then ostensibly he's the government, and he's deciding what "well-regulated militia" means, and can therefore decide.

Leisher wrote: Not picking on Troy AT ALL, but this is a pretty typical argument for gun control. You don't need an AK-47 to defend your home.

Troy was referencing this guy

Leisher wrote: And to clarify, I am 100% in favor of stricter gun laws, but not in favor of an outright ban.

Agree.

Leisher wrote: Teen drivers DO do some dumb shit.

Some days I look back and it's just incredible we survived.

Leisher wrote: (I've been insanely busy at work this week, so this post was a work in progress for at least two days.

I was wondering. 1/3rd of my office, including my direct boss, is on vacation, so I've been coming here like...

TheCatt wrote: Most of them. Everyone discusses the high amounts of gun control elsewhere saying "We need gun control like they do".

But their gun control is too far, and their governments have way too much power. The people too small a voice. Basically, the opposite of what the founding fathers envisioned for this country. There are lots of things other countries do and don't do that both sides of our political spectrum love or hate. Picking and choosing to support ______ argument is kind of bullshit.

TheCatt wrote: If he's one guy, then ostensibly he's the government, and he's deciding what "well-regulated militia" means, and can therefore decide.

What office are you running for? I ask because you skillfully dodged the actual question.

TheCatt wrote: Troy was referencing this guy

I had no idea that person existed or that quote, and I have to say, it's a bit of a relief. The pro gun argument of "it's for hunting" or "home defense" is a crock of shit. They need to admit the truth: They're fun to shoot, interesting to collect, and I want my elected officials to know their constituents are armed.

TheCatt wrote: Some days I look back and it's just incredible we survived.

Remember when seat belts were just an annoying thing near the seat? Or before baby seats when kids rode around in baskets in the backseat?

TheCatt wrote: I was wondering. 1/3rd of my office, including my direct boss, is on vacation, so I've been coming here like...

It's honestly sucked. My cohort is on vacation all week, I'm rolling out ProofPoint, prepping for the next semester of college, R&Ding for my capital budget, and dealing with all the day to day IT/help desk stuff.

Leisher wrote: What office are you running for? I ask because you skillfully dodged the actual question.

I absolutely decided. By letting him decide. Also, why a guy? Do you hate women?

Leisher wrote: Or before baby seats when kids rode around in baskets in the backseat?

I remember rolling around the back of our station wagon with no seat or belt.

Leisher wrote: My cohort is on vacation all week

Positive + Negative of my job: I have no cohort. On the one hand, no slack for me take up. On the other hand, something breaks when I'm on vacation

TheCatt wrote: I absolutely decided. By letting him decide.

You're only sticking to the extreme example.

Should I (criminal record free vet with no mental health issues...that last part is a total lie) in today's U.S. be able to purchase an AR-15? If no, why?

TheCatt wrote: I remember rolling around the back of our station wagon with no seat or belt.

I used to sit in the back seat and lean forward between the two front seats so I could feel more involved in my parents' conversations. Any accident and I would have been launched through the windshield.

TheCatt wrote: Positive + Negative of my job: I have no cohort. On the one hand, no slack for me take up. On the other hand, something breaks when I'm on vacation

Ours is similar. He's actually my subordinate. He is in charge of the help desk and desktops/laptops. My area is managerial and the servers. It always seems like weeks he's gone I get tons of desktop/laptop questions, and on weeks I'm gone he gets server issues to deal with.

Leisher wrote: You're only sticking to the extreme example.

Should I (criminal record free vet with no mental health issues...that last part is a total lie) in today's U.S. be able to purchase an AR-15? If no, why?

Maybe. I don't know your entire background. Also, I don't know enough about what an AR-15 is, versus other guns. Not my area of expertise.

Leisher wrote: I used to sit in the back seat and lean forward between the two front seats so I could feel more involved in my parents' conversations. Any accident and I would have been launched through the windshield.

Oh yeah, I remember that.

Leisher wrote: Ours is similar. He's actually my subordinate. He is in charge of the help desk and desktops/laptops. My area is managerial and the servers. It always seems like weeks he's gone I get tons of desktop/laptop questions, and on weeks I'm gone he gets server issues to deal with.

We used to have this process that a user developed, but we agreed to support in IT. It was Excel. It broke EVERY DAMNED HOLIDAY. He would call us and blame the database. Inevitably, it was his shitty Excel VBA code, or Excel itself, like running out of rows (Back when Excel had a max of 65,535 rows, etc).

OK, that didn't really relate, but still. I needed to vent, apparently.

I was looking at some statistics earlier today. Did you know that every year there are more illegal aliens charged with murder than there are murders committed with rifles? That's ALL rifles. Not just the unicorn "assault weapon". Si I have to ask myself what is motivating the politicians that refuse to do anything about securing our border to remove (to whatever degree) my ability to protect myself? It's obvious the public health isn't their concern.

Vince wrote: Did you know that every year there are more illegal aliens charged with murder than there are murders committed with rifles? That's ALL rifles. Not just the unicorn "assault weapon".

No. Give me a source.

Best I could find says 3: https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp- ... statistics

TheCatt wrote:

Vince wrote: Did you know that every year there are more illegal aliens charged with murder than there are murders committed with rifles? That's ALL rifles. Not just the unicorn "assault weapon".

No. Give me a source.

Best I could find says 3: https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp- ... statistics

That source is only showing the number of illegals that were detained by border patrol that already had a conviction.

Oddly enough, the "over 400" number comes from Snopes actually discrediting another rumor.

During a 2013 event hosted by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), King — who has a history of racist public statements — misrepresented a report from the Government Accountability Office, claiming that 25,064 undocumented immigrants had been arrested for homicides between 2004 and 2008. In fact, the statistic covered the time period between August 1955 and April 2010, a difference of nearly 51 years. The first, misstated timeframe would work out to about 17 homicide arrests per day; the real timeframe works out to approximately 1.25 arrests of undocumented persons for homicide per day, or 456 arrests per year.

Vince wrote: In fact, the statistic covered the time period between August 1955 and April 2010, a difference of nearly 51 years. The first, misstated timeframe would work out to about 17 homicide arrests per day; the real timeframe works out to approximately 1.25 arrests of undocumented persons for homicide per day, or 456 arrests per year.

Seems reasonable to assume that the number has gone up over time, not down, nor flat.

Well, here's the more relevant piece: Illegals commit murder at about the same rate as native-born citizens. Although LEGAL immigrants were much better than either group. So we should replace everyone with them.

There were 951 total homicide convictions in Texas in 2015. Of those, native-born Americans were convicted of 885 homicides, illegal immigrants were convicted of 51 homicides, and legal immigrants were convicted of 15 homicides. The homicide conviction rate for native-born Americans was 3.88 per 100,000, 2.9 per 100,000 for illegal immigrants, and 0.51 per 100,000 for legal immigrants (Figure 2). In 2015, homicide conviction rates for illegal and legal immigrants were 25 percent and 87 percent below those of natives, respectively.

Illegal immigrants made up about 6.4 percent of the Texas population in 2015 but only accounted for 5.4 percent of all homicide convictions. Legal immigrants made up 10.4 percent of the Texas population but accounted for only 1.6 percent of homicide convictions. native-born Americans made up 83 percent of the Texas population but accounted for 93 percent of all homicide convictions.

TheCatt wrote:

Vince wrote: In fact, the statistic covered the time period between August 1955 and April 2010, a difference of nearly 51 years. The first, misstated timeframe would work out to about 17 homicide arrests per day; the real timeframe works out to approximately 1.25 arrests of undocumented persons for homicide per day, or 456 arrests per year.

Seems reasonable to assume that the number has gone up over time, not down, nor flat.

True. So the most conservative number would be the 456 number. And that's assuming one homicide per incident. And that doesn't include the number of deaths via drunk driving and deaths not homicides.

TheCatt wrote: Well, here's the more relevant piece: Illegals commit murder at about the same rate as native-born citizens. Although LEGAL immigrants were much better than either group. So we should replace everyone with them.

Rifles make up less than 20% of homicides. Let's replace all handguns with AR-15's. It could potentially cut the murder rate in half or better.

Study on gun violence comes up with ideas.

Analysis revealed that universal background checks, permit requirements, “may issue” laws (where local authorities have discretion in approving who can carry a concealed weapon), and laws banning people convicted of violent misdemeanors from possessing firearms are, individually and collectively, significantly able to reduce gun-related deaths.

Everything there sounds reasonable to me. Make it so.

One thing they did say: Restrictions on gun types is irrelevant.

I don't care for the "may issue" laws. Mostly because they are ripe for abuse and activism.

Overall I'd be more open to new regulations if they'd follow through with prosecution when people break the law now. A felon tries to buy a gun and it gets flagged and the sale is stopped. That's good. The act of attempting to buy the gun with a felony record is another felony. Almost never prosecuted. Please show me you're interested in enforcing the existing laws against the criminals before you start dumping more restrictions on me.

Walmart pulls violent video game displays from its stores, but it will still sell guns

So, there's a bunch of nothing.

TheCatt wrote: Maybe. I don't know your entire background. Also, I don't know enough about what an AR-15 is, versus other guns. Not my area of expertise.

Well, the government trusted me enough to tell me secrets and give me guns, so...

An AR-15 is the civilian equivalent of the M-16. Same body and all that except it's not capable of automatic fire. (It is, but it has to be illegally modified.) With the AR-15 one squeeze of the trigger shoots one bullet. It's the same as any hunting rifle. It is not any sort of assault weapon and the "AR" does not stand for Assault Rifle as many morons believe.

TheCatt wrote: Illegals commit murder at about the same rate as native-born citizens.

The problem with that number is that illegals shouldn't be in the country so their number should be 0.

TheCatt wrote: Analysis revealed that universal background checks, permit requirements, “may issue” laws (where local authorities have discretion in approving who can carry a concealed weapon), and laws banning people convicted of violent misdemeanors from possessing firearms are, individually and collectively, significantly able to reduce gun-related deaths.

TheCatt wrote: Restrictions on gun types is irrelevant.

I also don't have any issue with those measures. We are in agreement. Make it the law. I love that a ban on gun type is irrelevant. It matches what we've been saying.

Vince wrote: I don't care for the "may issue" laws. Mostly because they are ripe for abuse and activism.

There's definitely room there for abuse and activism, but I'm fine with it. Put in a way for citizens to appeal to a federal office. That way if there's activism going on the feds can step in and squash it. This gray area needs to be there to protect people. Sometimes the laws are toothless, like restraining orders, and this helps even the playing field a bit.

TheCatt wrote: Walmart pulls violent video game displays from its stores, but it will still sell guns

It'll also continue to sell movies and music promoting violence. This sort of PR bullshit is really, really infuriating. The sheer stupidity of it.

Leisher wrote: Well, the government trusted me enough to tell me secrets and give me guns, so..

I mean, they did ONCE. Would they do it again?

Leisher wrote: An AR-15 is the civilian equivalent of the M-16. Same body and all that except it's not capable of automatic fire. (It is, but it has to be illegally modified.) With the AR-15 one squeeze of the trigger shoots one bullet.

A CTE is the same as a named subquery, but the execution plan may shift depending on the declaration method.

Leisher wrote: I also don't have any issue with those measures. We are in agreement. Make it the law. I love that a ban on gun type is irrelevant. It matches what we've been saying.

OK, I'll concede on gun type. Ostensibly these people know more than me. I would still outlaw bump stocks, and any kind of automatic modifications, etc.

Leisher wrote: There's definitely room there for abuse and activism, but I'm fine with it. Put in a way for citizens to appeal to a federal office. That way if there's activism going on the feds can step in and squash it. This gray area needs to be there to protect people.

Laws need grey areas. I know it causes a lot of potential issues, but realistically, having to define everything in laws just makes bad laws.