Good to see the kids stand up

Your Virginia Tech Politics and Religion source
Forum rules
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by ip_law-hokie »

133743Hokie wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote: Yet we have fewer guns today than 50 years ago and there were no mass shootings at that time. So why, all of a sudden, in the past 15 or so years are we seeing a spate of mass shootings? What has changed in society over that time period?

I'm pretty sure we have more guns now, than 30 years ago. Certainly more now than 30 years ago.

Over the past 15 years, not sure what has changed. Maybe the number of semi-auto rifles sold? :P
My mistake. I meant "gun ownership" has dropped over the past 50 years.

"The household gun ownership rate has fallen from an average of 50 percent in the 1970s to 49 percent in the 1980s, 43 percent in the 1990s and 35 percent in the 2000s, according to the survey data, analyzed by The New York Times."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/ra ... shows.html

What has changed since then? Disintegration of the family unit? Lack of respect for rules, laws and authority? Coddling of children? Latchkey kids? Disintegration of morals and values? Growth and exploitation of gore, death and violence in entertainment? Desensitization to violence? On and on and on. Essentially society at large has backslid.
People are moving from the country to the city and suburbs. Or the city and suburbs are moving to them. People in these environments don’t own firearms like they do in rural environments.

I think you are trying too hard and ignoring the obvious.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Are you saying people in the city and suburbs don't own guns? And I still believe nationwide there are still more people moving out of the city than into it. In any case, urban revitalization is a somewhat new phenomena . I think you are ignoring reality.
People have been moving from the sticks since, forever. I challenge you to find any data that suggests otherwise.

And yes, people in more urban environments don’t own guns at the same rate as people in the sticks.


None of this is controversial.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by USN_Hokie »

HokieFanDC wrote:[

But, what type of violent crime has become more common? Mass shootings. If you feel no desire to try and do better, that's your choice. But no need to bash other people who may want to have fewer mass shootings.
1. I don't accept that they've become more common. I do accept that the word has been used more often. If you're referring to the "study" which was basically a Lexus nexus search for "mass shooting" by year....that was garbage.

2. Wasting resources on statistically insignificant crime categories isn't smart. You can even make the overall picture worse. For example, the 94 AWB limited magazine size to 10rnds. This caused an increase in production of smaller, more concealable handguns - which are responsible for the overwhelming majority of gun violence.
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by ip_law-hokie »

USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:[

But, what type of violent crime has become more common? Mass shootings. If you feel no desire to try and do better, that's your choice. But no need to bash other people who may want to have fewer mass shootings.
1. I don't accept that they've become more common. I do accept that the word has been used more often. If you're referring to the "study" which was basically a Lexus nexus search for "mass shooting" by year....that was garbage.

2. Wasting resources on statistically insignificant crime categories isn't smart. You can even make the overall picture worse. For example, the 94 AWB limited magazine size to 10rnds. This caused an increase in production of smaller, more concealable handguns - which are responsible for the overwhelming majority of gun violence.
Respectfully, you are not being intellectually honest with 1.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by awesome guy »

USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:[

But, what type of violent crime has become more common? Mass shootings. If you feel no desire to try and do better, that's your choice. But no need to bash other people who may want to have fewer mass shootings.
1. I don't accept that they've become more common. I do accept that the word has been used more often. If you're referring to the "study" which was basically a Lexus nexus search for "mass shooting" by year....that was garbage.

2. Wasting resources on statistically insignificant crime categories isn't smart. You can even make the overall picture worse. For example, the 94 AWB limited magazine size to 10rnds. This caused an increase in production of smaller, more concealable handguns - which are responsible for the overwhelming majority of gun violence.
I don't think they realize that you can reload a weapon.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by USN_Hokie »

awesome guy wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:[

But, what type of violent crime has become more common? Mass shootings. If you feel no desire to try and do better, that's your choice. But no need to bash other people who may want to have fewer mass shootings.
1. I don't accept that they've become more common. I do accept that the word has been used more often. If you're referring to the "study" which was basically a Lexus nexus search for "mass shooting" by year....that was garbage.

2. Wasting resources on statistically insignificant crime categories isn't smart. You can even make the overall picture worse. For example, the 94 AWB limited magazine size to 10rnds. This caused an increase in production of smaller, more concealable handguns - which are responsible for the overwhelming majority of gun violence.
I don't think they realize that you can reload a weapon.
Just as importantly, these kooks aren't fighting Seal Team 6. It's not like you need to need to lay down 100rnds of continuous fire to kill cowering women and children.
HokieFanDC
Posts: 18547
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by HokieFanDC »

133743Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote: Fair points. Violent crime, all types of violent crime, decreased significantly. There is no evidence that it had anything to do with gun rights or more guns. The only meaningful conclusion of those datasets is that more guns and more gun rights do not necessarily equate to more overall gun violence.

But, what type of violent crime has become more common? Mass shootings. If you feel no desire to try and do better, that's your choice. But no need to bash other people who may want to have fewer mass shootings.
And yes, anyone who doesn't acknowledge those rights is not worth dealing with, just like anyone who is against even a discussion about change, is not worth dealing with.
Yet we have fewer guns today than 50 years ago and there were no mass shootings at that time. So why, all of a sudden, in the past 15 or so years are we seeing a spate of mass shootings? What has changed in society over that time period?

I'm pretty sure we have more guns now, than 30 years ago. Certainly more now than 30 years ago.

Over the past 15 years, not sure what has changed. Maybe the number of semi-auto rifles sold? :P
My mistake. I meant "gun ownership" has dropped over the past 50 years.

"The household gun ownership rate has fallen from an average of 50 percent in the 1970s to 49 percent in the 1980s, 43 percent in the 1990s and 35 percent in the 2000s, according to the survey data, analyzed by The New York Times."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/us/ra ... shows.html

What has changed since then? Disintegration of the family unit? Lack of respect for rules, laws and authority? Coddling of children? Latchkey kids? Disintegration of morals and values? Growth and exploitation of gore, death and violence in entertainment? Desensitization to violence? On and on and on. Essentially society at large has backslid.
IMO, that argument falls apart based on a reduction in overall violent crimes over the last 20-30 years. All of those sound like reasons why society would fall apart, but in general, we're safer now than we've been in a long time. The outlier is mass shootings.
HokieFanDC
Posts: 18547
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by HokieFanDC »

USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:[

But, what type of violent crime has become more common? Mass shootings. If you feel no desire to try and do better, that's your choice. But no need to bash other people who may want to have fewer mass shootings.
1. I don't accept that they've become more common. I do accept that the word has been used more often. If you're referring to the "study" which was basically a Lexus nexus search for "mass shooting" by year....that was garbage.

2. Wasting resources on statistically insignificant crime categories isn't smart. You can even make the overall picture worse. For example, the 94 AWB limited magazine size to 10rnds. This caused an increase in production of smaller, more concealable handguns - which are responsible for the overwhelming majority of gun violence.
I'm not referring to any study. Anyone paying attention can see that shootings like Vegas, Parkland, Pulse, etc., are happening more frequently.

As for wasting resources, that's subjective, and no one's even gotten to the point to target what resources would be utilized.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by awesome guy »

HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:[

But, what type of violent crime has become more common? Mass shootings. If you feel no desire to try and do better, that's your choice. But no need to bash other people who may want to have fewer mass shootings.
1. I don't accept that they've become more common. I do accept that the word has been used more often. If you're referring to the "study" which was basically a Lexus nexus search for "mass shooting" by year....that was garbage.

2. Wasting resources on statistically insignificant crime categories isn't smart. You can even make the overall picture worse. For example, the 94 AWB limited magazine size to 10rnds. This caused an increase in production of smaller, more concealable handguns - which are responsible for the overwhelming majority of gun violence.
I'm not referring to any study. Anyone paying attention can see that shootings like Vegas, Parkland, Pulse, etc., are happening more frequently.

As for wasting resources, that's subjective, and no one's even gotten to the point to target what resources would be utilized.
But they're not
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by USN_Hokie »

HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:[

But, what type of violent crime has become more common? Mass shootings. If you feel no desire to try and do better, that's your choice. But no need to bash other people who may want to have fewer mass shootings.
1. I don't accept that they've become more common. I do accept that the word has been used more often. If you're referring to the "study" which was basically a Lexus nexus search for "mass shooting" by year....that was garbage.

2. Wasting resources on statistically insignificant crime categories isn't smart. You can even make the overall picture worse. For example, the 94 AWB limited magazine size to 10rnds. This caused an increase in production of smaller, more concealable handguns - which are responsible for the overwhelming majority of gun violence.
I'm not referring to any study. Anyone paying attention can see that shootings like Vegas, Parkland, Pulse, etc., are happening more frequently.

As for wasting resources, that's subjective, and no one's even gotten to the point to target what resources would be utilized.
1. You mean that CNN is reporting more about it. I would be somewhat open to the idea that all the publicity is encouraging these nuts.

2. My response was valid in the context it was given. You said there was "no need to bash" people who want less mass shootings. My point is that half measures can have the opposite effect, so there's nothing wrong with a cynical eye.
HokieFanDC
Posts: 18547
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by HokieFanDC »

USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:[

But, what type of violent crime has become more common? Mass shootings. If you feel no desire to try and do better, that's your choice. But no need to bash other people who may want to have fewer mass shootings.
1. I don't accept that they've become more common. I do accept that the word has been used more often. If you're referring to the "study" which was basically a Lexus nexus search for "mass shooting" by year....that was garbage.

2. Wasting resources on statistically insignificant crime categories isn't smart. You can even make the overall picture worse. For example, the 94 AWB limited magazine size to 10rnds. This caused an increase in production of smaller, more concealable handguns - which are responsible for the overwhelming majority of gun violence.
I'm not referring to any study. Anyone paying attention can see that shootings like Vegas, Parkland, Pulse, etc., are happening more frequently.

As for wasting resources, that's subjective, and no one's even gotten to the point to target what resources would be utilized.
1. You mean that CNN is reporting more about it. I would be somewhat open to the idea that all the publicity is encouraging these nuts.

2. My response was valid in the context it was given. You said there was "no need to bash" people who want less mass shootings. My point is that half measures can have the opposite effect, so there's nothing wrong with a cynical eye.
No, that's not what I meant. I meant there's more of them, and that anyone paying attention can see that. 19 of the 30 deadliest shootings, since 1949, have occurred in the last 10 years. I don't know all of them, but I would bet that outside of the Austin shootings, most of them happened in the last 30 years.

Your theory about publicity could have some validity. Of course, to be valid, there would need to be more of those nuts.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by awesome guy »

HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:[

But, what type of violent crime has become more common? Mass shootings. If you feel no desire to try and do better, that's your choice. But no need to bash other people who may want to have fewer mass shootings.
1. I don't accept that they've become more common. I do accept that the word has been used more often. If you're referring to the "study" which was basically a Lexus nexus search for "mass shooting" by year....that was garbage.

2. Wasting resources on statistically insignificant crime categories isn't smart. You can even make the overall picture worse. For example, the 94 AWB limited magazine size to 10rnds. This caused an increase in production of smaller, more concealable handguns - which are responsible for the overwhelming majority of gun violence.
I'm not referring to any study. Anyone paying attention can see that shootings like Vegas, Parkland, Pulse, etc., are happening more frequently.

As for wasting resources, that's subjective, and no one's even gotten to the point to target what resources would be utilized.
1. You mean that CNN is reporting more about it. I would be somewhat open to the idea that all the publicity is encouraging these nuts.

2. My response was valid in the context it was given. You said there was "no need to bash" people who want less mass shootings. My point is that half measures can have the opposite effect, so there's nothing wrong with a cynical eye.
No, that's not what I meant. I meant there's more of them, and that anyone paying attention can see that. 19 of the 30 deadliest shootings, since 1949, have occurred in the last 10 years. I don't know all of them, but I would bet that outside of the Austin shootings, most of them happened in the last 30 years.

Your theory about publicity could have some validity. Of course, to be valid, there would need to be more of those nuts.
So as the population loses guns, mass killings are more deadly. You guys won't acknowledge how an armed population makes mass killings like the Oregon Mall shooting, 2 dead before random gun deters attacker.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
HokieFanDC
Posts: 18547
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by HokieFanDC »

awesome guy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
1. I don't accept that they've become more common. I do accept that the word has been used more often. If you're referring to the "study" which was basically a Lexus nexus search for "mass shooting" by year....that was garbage.

2. Wasting resources on statistically insignificant crime categories isn't smart. You can even make the overall picture worse. For example, the 94 AWB limited magazine size to 10rnds. This caused an increase in production of smaller, more concealable handguns - which are responsible for the overwhelming majority of gun violence.
I'm not referring to any study. Anyone paying attention can see that shootings like Vegas, Parkland, Pulse, etc., are happening more frequently.

As for wasting resources, that's subjective, and no one's even gotten to the point to target what resources would be utilized.
1. You mean that CNN is reporting more about it. I would be somewhat open to the idea that all the publicity is encouraging these nuts.

2. My response was valid in the context it was given. You said there was "no need to bash" people who want less mass shootings. My point is that half measures can have the opposite effect, so there's nothing wrong with a cynical eye.
No, that's not what I meant. I meant there's more of them, and that anyone paying attention can see that. 19 of the 30 deadliest shootings, since 1949, have occurred in the last 10 years. I don't know all of them, but I would bet that outside of the Austin shootings, most of them happened in the last 30 years.

Your theory about publicity could have some validity. Of course, to be valid, there would need to be more of those nuts.
So as the population loses guns, mass killings are more deadly. You guys won't acknowledge how an armed population makes mass killings like the Oregon Mall shooting, 2 dead before random gun deters attacker.
That’s not a bad theory. That would require 1 of 2 things. One is that there were would be shooters who didn’t commit these crimes before, b/c they were afraid of being shot. And then those type of shooters are now aware that fewer households have guns, so are more confident.
Tough one to swallow.
Second would require evidence that attacks were thwarted by gun owners before they happened or before they reached mass shooting status. Tougher to prove but seems reasonable, and also is something that wouldn’t spark national news.
User avatar
awesome guy
Posts: 54187
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:10 pm
Party: After 10
Location: Plastic Flotilla:Location Classified

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by awesome guy »

HokieFanDC wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
1. I don't accept that they've become more common. I do accept that the word has been used more often. If you're referring to the "study" which was basically a Lexus nexus search for "mass shooting" by year....that was garbage.

2. Wasting resources on statistically insignificant crime categories isn't smart. You can even make the overall picture worse. For example, the 94 AWB limited magazine size to 10rnds. This caused an increase in production of smaller, more concealable handguns - which are responsible for the overwhelming majority of gun violence.
I'm not referring to any study. Anyone paying attention can see that shootings like Vegas, Parkland, Pulse, etc., are happening more frequently.

As for wasting resources, that's subjective, and no one's even gotten to the point to target what resources would be utilized.
1. You mean that CNN is reporting more about it. I would be somewhat open to the idea that all the publicity is encouraging these nuts.

2. My response was valid in the context it was given. You said there was "no need to bash" people who want less mass shootings. My point is that half measures can have the opposite effect, so there's nothing wrong with a cynical eye.
No, that's not what I meant. I meant there's more of them, and that anyone paying attention can see that. 19 of the 30 deadliest shootings, since 1949, have occurred in the last 10 years. I don't know all of them, but I would bet that outside of the Austin shootings, most of them happened in the last 30 years.

Your theory about publicity could have some validity. Of course, to be valid, there would need to be more of those nuts.
So as the population loses guns, mass killings are more deadly. You guys won't acknowledge how an armed population makes mass killings like the Oregon Mall shooting, 2 dead before random gun deters attacker.
That’s not a bad theory. That would require 1 of 2 things. One is that there were would be shooters who didn’t commit these crimes before, b/c they were afraid of being shot. And then those type of shooters are now aware that fewer households have guns, so are more confident.
Tough one to swallow.
Second would require evidence that attacks were thwarted by gun owners before they happened or before they reached mass shooting status. Tougher to prove but seems reasonable, and also is something that wouldn’t spark national news.
It's easy to swallow as it's true. The more armed defenders an attacker faces the less odds he has. It's no accident that the high fatality killings happen in gun-free zones.
Unvaccinated,. mask free, and still alive.
User avatar
UpstateSCHokie
Posts: 11907
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:31 pm

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by UpstateSCHokie »

Good to see kids stand up and expose the media who are exploiting this tragedy to push an agenda that would have done nothing to stop this mass shooting. Good to see that there are still some kids that can see through the left's BS.

=========================================================

Parkland Survivor: Media Using Tragedy To Push Gun Control
Amber Athey
8:54 PM 02/20/2018

Brandon Minoff, an 18-year-old survivor of the Florida school shooting, slammed the media for politicizing the aftermath of the deadly incident.

Minoff, who was previously interviewed by CNN and MSNBC, told Fox News Tuesday that too many media outlets are focusing on gun control rather than the 17 people who died in last Wednesday’s shooting.

“I wholeheartedly believe that the media is politicizing this tragedy,” Minoff said. “It seems that gun control laws is the major topic of conversation rather than focusing on the bigger issue of 17 innocent lives being taken at the hands of another human.”

The survivor didn’t knock his fellow classmates for pushing gun control, noting that they are well-meaning and passionate about the issue, but questioned why the media wasn’t giving attention to students on the other side of the debate.

“I know many people who are pro-gun and others who support gun control but it seems that the media is specifically targeting those in support of gun control to make it seem as if they are the majority, and the liberal news outlets are the ones that seem to make the bigger effort to speak to these people, and I’m talking from experience,” Minoff explained.

Minoff was interviewed by Brian Williams on MSNBC last week and told the anchor that he believed banning guns would just create a higher demand for them.

“And all day Thursday, CNN was interviewing gun experts and specialists to brainwash the audience that gun control is a necessity,” he told Fox. “They even have an army of my classmates trying to persuade other students that guns are unnecessary and should be illegal.”

http://dailycaller.com/2018/02/20/parkl ... n-control/
Image

“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” ― Voltaire (1694 – 1778)
cwtcr hokie
Posts: 13399
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by cwtcr hokie »

HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote: David Kopel is another, I'm sure there are more. You're standard preconceived reaction to anything you disagree with bit you again.

The results show the policies that a diverse group of people think have the highest likelihood of having an impact. Sounds like a rational way to talk about potential solutions or improvements, unless you're someone that has an irrational objection to any change.
1. Using criteria picked for them by others. That's a classic way to design a bullshirt study.

2. No, evidence-based studies are the best way to evaluate, but I reject your premise that we have to find a "solution." - again, a hallmark of a crap study.
Like I said, you are 100% against any change, so you dismiss any discussion whatsoever.
I'm in full support of the significant decline in violent crime over the last 25yrs - a period in which gun rights and guns themselves have proliferated. How's that for some evidence-based analysis?

Beyond that, why should I deal with folks who don't even acknowledge our right exists? Forget that.
Fair points. Violent crime, all types of violent crime, decreased significantly. There is no evidence that it had anything to do with gun rights or more guns. The only meaningful conclusion of those datasets is that more guns and more gun rights do not necessarily equate to more overall gun violence.

But, what type of violent crime has become more common? Mass shootings. If you feel no desire to try and do better, that's your choice. But no need to bash other people who may want to have fewer mass shootings.
And yes, anyone who doesn't acknowledge those rights is not worth dealing with, just like anyone who is against even a discussion about change, is not worth dealing with.
of course people using vehicles to kill people has increased in the last few years....so we ban them right?
cwtcr hokie
Posts: 13399
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by cwtcr hokie »

HokieFanDC wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
1. I don't accept that they've become more common. I do accept that the word has been used more often. If you're referring to the "study" which was basically a Lexus nexus search for "mass shooting" by year....that was garbage.

2. Wasting resources on statistically insignificant crime categories isn't smart. You can even make the overall picture worse. For example, the 94 AWB limited magazine size to 10rnds. This caused an increase in production of smaller, more concealable handguns - which are responsible for the overwhelming majority of gun violence.
I'm not referring to any study. Anyone paying attention can see that shootings like Vegas, Parkland, Pulse, etc., are happening more frequently.

As for wasting resources, that's subjective, and no one's even gotten to the point to target what resources would be utilized.
1. You mean that CNN is reporting more about it. I would be somewhat open to the idea that all the publicity is encouraging these nuts.

2. My response was valid in the context it was given. You said there was "no need to bash" people who want less mass shootings. My point is that half measures can have the opposite effect, so there's nothing wrong with a cynical eye.
No, that's not what I meant. I meant there's more of them, and that anyone paying attention can see that. 19 of the 30 deadliest shootings, since 1949, have occurred in the last 10 years. I don't know all of them, but I would bet that outside of the Austin shootings, most of them happened in the last 30 years.

Your theory about publicity could have some validity. Of course, to be valid, there would need to be more of those nuts.
So as the population loses guns, mass killings are more deadly. You guys won't acknowledge how an armed population makes mass killings like the Oregon Mall shooting, 2 dead before random gun deters attacker.
That’s not a bad theory. That would require 1 of 2 things. One is that there were would be shooters who didn’t commit these crimes before, b/c they were afraid of being shot. And then those type of shooters are now aware that fewer households have guns, so are more confident.
Tough one to swallow.
Second would require evidence that attacks were thwarted by gun owners before they happened or before they reached mass shooting status. Tougher to prove but seems reasonable, and also is something that wouldn’t spark national news.
the second the moron FL shooter had any real opposition..... he dropped his weapon and ran. This is the case with most of these idiots, thus the reason for more armed citizens, common sense it will put a big dent in crime and mass shootings. See the texas district that has armed teachers......so far nobody has even tried to challenge them. get it?
HokieFanDC
Posts: 18547
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by HokieFanDC »

cwtcr hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote: David Kopel is another, I'm sure there are more. You're standard preconceived reaction to anything you disagree with bit you again.

The results show the policies that a diverse group of people think have the highest likelihood of having an impact. Sounds like a rational way to talk about potential solutions or improvements, unless you're someone that has an irrational objection to any change.
1. Using criteria picked for them by others. That's a classic way to design a bullshirt study.

2. No, evidence-based studies are the best way to evaluate, but I reject your premise that we have to find a "solution." - again, a hallmark of a crap study.
Like I said, you are 100% against any change, so you dismiss any discussion whatsoever.
I'm in full support of the significant decline in violent crime over the last 25yrs - a period in which gun rights and guns themselves have proliferated. How's that for some evidence-based analysis?

Beyond that, why should I deal with folks who don't even acknowledge our right exists? Forget that.
Fair points. Violent crime, all types of violent crime, decreased significantly. There is no evidence that it had anything to do with gun rights or more guns. The only meaningful conclusion of those datasets is that more guns and more gun rights do not necessarily equate to more overall gun violence.

But, what type of violent crime has become more common? Mass shootings. If you feel no desire to try and do better, that's your choice. But no need to bash other people who may want to have fewer mass shootings.
And yes, anyone who doesn't acknowledge those rights is not worth dealing with, just like anyone who is against even a discussion about change, is not worth dealing with.
of course people using vehicles to kill people has increased in the last few years....so we ban them right?
So cars and guns can both kill people. Sounds like you think they're similar, are you cool with them having the same restrictions?

For any person to operate a car (not own, just operate one), they do the following:

- Obtain a drivers license, with photo, from the state that registers them with the state and many other databases.
- Take a course on use, safety, and laws related to operating the vehicle.
- Take a written test to make sure the course taught them what they needed to know.
- Take a field test to ensure they can operate the vehicle effectively and safely.
- Renew that license on a periodic basis.
- If you want to operate a vehicle that is not a standard passenger vehicle, you must obtain a separate license with separate requirements, including training.

To own a car, you have to:
- Register the purchase with the state, sometimes costing hundreds of dollars.
- Obtain insurance for that vehicle to cover costs associated with any property damage or bodily harm done by the vehicle.
- In some states, have periodic inspections to verify that the car is safe to operate.
- In many states, you have to pay annual taxes, or registration fees, often costing hundreds of dollars.
- When the car is sold, the purchase details must be registered.

You think having those requirements for gun ownership and operation is a good idea??
cwtcr hokie
Posts: 13399
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 1:25 pm

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by cwtcr hokie »

The results show the policies that a diverse group of people think have the highest likelihood of having an impact. Sounds like a rational way to talk about potential solutions or improvements, unless you're someone that has an irrational objection to any change.[/quote]

1. Using criteria picked for them by others. That's a classic way to design a bullshirt study.

2. No, evidence-based studies are the best way to evaluate, but I reject your premise that we have to find a "solution." - again, a hallmark of a crap study.[/quote]

Like I said, you are 100% against any change, so you dismiss any discussion whatsoever.[/quote]

I'm in full support of the significant decline in violent crime over the last 25yrs - a period in which gun rights and guns themselves have proliferated. How's that for some evidence-based analysis?

Beyond that, why should I deal with folks who don't even acknowledge our right exists? Forget that.[/quote]

Fair points. Violent crime, all types of violent crime, decreased significantly. There is no evidence that it had anything to do with gun rights or more guns. The only meaningful conclusion of those datasets is that more guns and more gun rights do not necessarily equate to more overall gun violence.

But, what type of violent crime has become more common? Mass shootings. If you feel no desire to try and do better, that's your choice. But no need to bash other people who may want to have fewer mass shootings.
And yes, anyone who doesn't acknowledge those rights is not worth dealing with, just like anyone who is against even a discussion about change, is not worth dealing with.[/quote]

of course people using vehicles to kill people has increased in the last few years....so we ban them right?[/quote]

So cars and guns can both kill people. Sounds like you think they're similar, are you cool with them having the same restrictions?

For any person to operate a car (not own, just operate one), they do the following:

- Obtain a drivers license, with photo, from the state that registers them with the state and many other databases.
- Take a course on use, safety, and laws related to operating the vehicle.
- Take a written test to make sure the course taught them what they needed to know.
- Take a field test to ensure they can operate the vehicle effectively and safely.
- Renew that license on a periodic basis.
- If you want to operate a vehicle that is not a standard passenger vehicle, you must obtain a separate license with separate requirements, including training.

To own a car, you have to:
- Register the purchase with the state, sometimes costing hundreds of dollars.
- Obtain insurance for that vehicle to cover costs associated with any property damage or bodily harm done by the vehicle.
- In some states, have periodic inspections to verify that the car is safe to operate.
- In many states, you have to pay annual taxes, or registration fees, often costing hundreds of dollars.
- When the car is sold, the purchase details must be registered.

You think having those requirements for gun ownership and operation is a good idea??[/quote]

only if you have the same requirements for cigarettes (kills more combined then all car crashes, all crime, etc etc)

fyi, when you purchase a firearm there is paperwork that goes with it and you pay the sales taxes on the purchase (so you are registered with the state), and you do have to pay the tax and fees involved in having a hunting/fishing license yearly. As far as insurance what are you insuring for? If I shoot someone it is in self defense, so no liability on my side. And anyone can sue, the reason we have car insurance is due to the large cost associated with car wrecks, I can replace a gun for a few hundred dollars. I have no problem with more taxes for personal property as long as everyone pays for everything they own every year
HokieFanDC
Posts: 18547
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by HokieFanDC »

cwtcr hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote: Like I said, you are 100% against any change, so you dismiss any discussion whatsoever.
I'm in full support of the significant decline in violent crime over the last 25yrs - a period in which gun rights and guns themselves have proliferated. How's that for some evidence-based analysis?

Beyond that, why should I deal with folks who don't even acknowledge our right exists? Forget that.
Fair points. Violent crime, all types of violent crime, decreased significantly. There is no evidence that it had anything to do with gun rights or more guns. The only meaningful conclusion of those datasets is that more guns and more gun rights do not necessarily equate to more overall gun violence.

But, what type of violent crime has become more common? Mass shootings. If you feel no desire to try and do better, that's your choice. But no need to bash other people who may want to have fewer mass shootings.
And yes, anyone who doesn't acknowledge those rights is not worth dealing with, just like anyone who is against even a discussion about change, is not worth dealing with.
of course people using vehicles to kill people has increased in the last few years....so we ban them right?
So cars and guns can both kill people. Sounds like you think they're similar, are you cool with them having the same restrictions?

For any person to operate a car (not own, just operate one), they do the following:

- Obtain a drivers license, with photo, from the state that registers them with the state and many other databases.
- Take a course on use, safety, and laws related to operating the vehicle.
- Take a written test to make sure the course taught them what they needed to know.
- Take a field test to ensure they can operate the vehicle effectively and safely.
- Renew that license on a periodic basis.
- If you want to operate a vehicle that is not a standard passenger vehicle, you must obtain a separate license with separate requirements, including training.

To own a car, you have to:
- Register the purchase with the state, sometimes costing hundreds of dollars.
- Obtain insurance for that vehicle to cover costs associated with any property damage or bodily harm done by the vehicle.
- In some states, have periodic inspections to verify that the car is safe to operate.
- In many states, you have to pay annual taxes, or registration fees, often costing hundreds of dollars.
- When the car is sold, the purchase details must be registered.

You think having those requirements for gun ownership and operation is a good idea??
only if you have the same requirements for cigarettes (kills more combined then all car crashes, all crime, etc etc)

fyi, when you purchase a firearm there is paperwork that goes with it and you pay the sales taxes on the purchase (so you are registered with the state), and you do have to pay the tax and fees involved in having a hunting/fishing license yearly. As far as insurance what are you insuring for? If I shoot someone it is in self defense, so no liability on my side. And anyone can sue, the reason we have car insurance is due to the large cost associated with car wrecks, I can replace a gun for a few hundred dollars. I have no problem with more taxes for personal property as long as everyone pays for everything they own every year
Bwahahaha. Your first response to my response about cars (that you brought up) is to add cigarettes to the mix? Maybe just focus on your first argument, then we can move on to cigs.

Paying sales tax is not registering, that's silly. And hunting/fishing licenses are only tangentially related to guns.
As for insurance, insurance is for accidents. There are car accidents, and gun accidents. Both types are expensive.

Bottom line, you would not be OK with gun owners and users having the same rules as cars. Until you are, stop using cars as an analogy.
Last edited by HokieFanDC on Wed Feb 21, 2018 8:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
133743Hokie
Posts: 11220
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:29 am

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by 133743Hokie »

cwtcr hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
awesome guy wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:
HokieFanDC wrote:
I'm not referring to any study. Anyone paying attention can see that shootings like Vegas, Parkland, Pulse, etc., are happening more frequently.

As for wasting resources, that's subjective, and no one's even gotten to the point to target what resources would be utilized.
1. You mean that CNN is reporting more about it. I would be somewhat open to the idea that all the publicity is encouraging these nuts.

2. My response was valid in the context it was given. You said there was "no need to bash" people who want less mass shootings. My point is that half measures can have the opposite effect, so there's nothing wrong with a cynical eye.
No, that's not what I meant. I meant there's more of them, and that anyone paying attention can see that. 19 of the 30 deadliest shootings, since 1949, have occurred in the last 10 years. I don't know all of them, but I would bet that outside of the Austin shootings, most of them happened in the last 30 years.

Your theory about publicity could have some validity. Of course, to be valid, there would need to be more of those nuts.
So as the population loses guns, mass killings are more deadly. You guys won't acknowledge how an armed population makes mass killings like the Oregon Mall shooting, 2 dead before random gun deters attacker.
That’s not a bad theory. That would require 1 of 2 things. One is that there were would be shooters who didn’t commit these crimes before, b/c they were afraid of being shot. And then those type of shooters are now aware that fewer households have guns, so are more confident.
Tough one to swallow.
Second would require evidence that attacks were thwarted by gun owners before they happened or before they reached mass shooting status. Tougher to prove but seems reasonable, and also is something that wouldn’t spark national news.
the second the moron FL shooter had any real opposition..... he dropped his weapon and ran. This is the case with most of these idiots, thus the reason for more armed citizens, common sense it will put a big dent in crime and mass shootings. See the texas district that has armed teachers......so far nobody has even tried to challenge them. get it?
My understanding is he didn't run. He went in the stairwell, stepped out onto one floor and went into 4 different classrooms and shot people. Went back into the stairwell, up a floor, and shot into 2 or 3 classrooms. Then he walked down the hall to the other end, dropped his weapons and bag, entered the stairwell at that end, went down, and exited out with the other students. He didn't run. In fact he was pretty bold to calmly walk out with students.
133743Hokie
Posts: 11220
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:29 am

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by 133743Hokie »

cwtcr hokie wrote:The results show the policies that a diverse group of people think have the highest likelihood of having an impact. Sounds like a rational way to talk about potential solutions or improvements, unless you're someone that has an irrational objection to any change.
1. Using criteria picked for them by others. That's a classic way to design a bullshirt study.

2. No, evidence-based studies are the best way to evaluate, but I reject your premise that we have to find a "solution." - again, a hallmark of a crap study.[/quote]

Like I said, you are 100% against any change, so you dismiss any discussion whatsoever.[/quote]

I'm in full support of the significant decline in violent crime over the last 25yrs - a period in which gun rights and guns themselves have proliferated. How's that for some evidence-based analysis?

Beyond that, why should I deal with folks who don't even acknowledge our right exists? Forget that.[/quote]

Fair points. Violent crime, all types of violent crime, decreased significantly. There is no evidence that it had anything to do with gun rights or more guns. The only meaningful conclusion of those datasets is that more guns and more gun rights do not necessarily equate to more overall gun violence.

But, what type of violent crime has become more common? Mass shootings. If you feel no desire to try and do better, that's your choice. But no need to bash other people who may want to have fewer mass shootings.
And yes, anyone who doesn't acknowledge those rights is not worth dealing with, just like anyone who is against even a discussion about change, is not worth dealing with.[/quote]

of course people using vehicles to kill people has increased in the last few years....so we ban them right?[/quote]

So cars and guns can both kill people. Sounds like you think they're similar, are you cool with them having the same restrictions?

For any person to operate a car (not own, just operate one), they do the following:

- Obtain a drivers license, with photo, from the state that registers them with the state and many other databases.
- Take a course on use, safety, and laws related to operating the vehicle.
- Take a written test to make sure the course taught them what they needed to know.
- Take a field test to ensure they can operate the vehicle effectively and safely.
- Renew that license on a periodic basis.
- If you want to operate a vehicle that is not a standard passenger vehicle, you must obtain a separate license with separate requirements, including training.

To own a car, you have to:
- Register the purchase with the state, sometimes costing hundreds of dollars.
- Obtain insurance for that vehicle to cover costs associated with any property damage or bodily harm done by the vehicle.
- In some states, have periodic inspections to verify that the car is safe to operate.
- In many states, you have to pay annual taxes, or registration fees, often costing hundreds of dollars.
- When the car is sold, the purchase details must be registered.

You think having those requirements for gun ownership and operation is a good idea??[/quote]

only if you have the same requirements for cigarettes (kills more combined then all car crashes, all crime, etc etc)

fyi, when you purchase a firearm there is paperwork that goes with it and you pay the sales taxes on the purchase (so you are registered with the state), and you do have to pay the tax and fees involved in having a hunting/fishing license yearly. As far as insurance what are you insuring for? If I shoot someone it is in self defense, so no liability on my side. And anyone can sue, the reason we have car insurance is due to the large cost associated with car wrecks, I can replace a gun for a few hundred dollars. I have no problem with more taxes for personal property as long as everyone pays for everything they own every year[/quote]
Paying sales tax does not register you. Stores report gross sales and make their tax payment. The government has no idea who those sales were made to. As for car insurance, we have liability insurance to cover harm to people and property.
CFB Apologist
Posts: 3192
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 5:27 pm

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by CFB Apologist »

Awesome.. let’s go with gun regulations the exact same as a car... meaning I can now:

Legally loan my AR15 to someone
Legally take my AR15 from state to state with no issues
Legally buy as many ar15s as I want with no “waiting period”
License to use AR15 is valid for 15 years
Legally can use my AR15 at age 16

Deal?
HokieFanDC
Posts: 18547
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:57 pm

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by HokieFanDC »

CFB Apologist wrote:Awesome.. let’s go with gun regulations the exact same as a car... meaning I can now:

Legally loan my AR15 to someone
Legally take my AR15 from state to state with no issues
Legally buy as many ar15s as I want with no “waiting period”
License to use AR15 is valid for 15 years
Legally can use my AR15 at age 16

Deal?
Sure.

You could only loan it to someone, if that someone has a valid license to use it, registered with the state.
You can take it from state to state, but have to follow the laws of that state.
You have to register each AR15 that you purchase, and re-register it every year.
Length of license validity is on a state by state basis. In some cases, it's 5 year renewal.

I'll ignore the age limitation, it's even more ridiculous than the rest of the scenarios you posted.

If you're OK registering every gun you own, and registering any change of ownership, you're in a very tiny group of gun rights advocates....
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by ip_law-hokie »

HokieFanDC wrote:
CFB Apologist wrote:Awesome.. let’s go with gun regulations the exact same as a car... meaning I can now:

Legally loan my AR15 to someone
Legally take my AR15 from state to state with no issues
Legally buy as many ar15s as I want with no “waiting period”
License to use AR15 is valid for 15 years
Legally can use my AR15 at age 16

Deal?
Sure.

You could only loan it to someone, if that someone has a valid license to use it, registered with the state.
You can take it from state to state, but have to follow the laws of that state.
You have to register each AR15 that you purchase, and re-register it every year.
Length of license validity is on a state by state basis. In some cases, it's 5 year renewal.

I'll ignore the age limitation, it's even more ridiculous than the rest of the scenarios you posted.

If you're OK registering every gun you own, and registering any change of ownership, you're in a very tiny group of gun rights advocates....
Solid work here DC.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
133743Hokie
Posts: 11220
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:29 am

Re: Good to see the kids stand up

Post by 133743Hokie »

HokieFanDC wrote:
CFB Apologist wrote:Awesome.. let’s go with gun regulations the exact same as a car... meaning I can now:

Legally loan my AR15 to someone
Legally take my AR15 from state to state with no issues
Legally buy as many ar15s as I want with no “waiting period”
License to use AR15 is valid for 15 years
Legally can use my AR15 at age 16

Deal?
Sure.

You could only loan it to someone, if that someone has a valid license to use it, registered with the state.
You can take it from state to state, but have to follow the laws of that state.
You have to register each AR15 that you purchase, and re-register it every year.
Length of license validity is on a state by state basis. In some cases, it's 5 year renewal.

I'll ignore the age limitation, it's even more ridiculous than the rest of the scenarios you posted.

If you're OK registering every gun you own, and registering any change of ownership, you're in a very tiny group of gun rights advocates....
Agree, I would have no issue with this.
If you move you have to reregister as well.
Post Reply