• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

Borrowing from a high school classmate of mine, who shared his thoughts last night on "what he'd do":

1. Tax guns and ammunition to reflect their true cost on society. An AR-15 is already pretty expensive so adding a tax won't keep it out of the hands of anyone who really wants one, but I'd earmark the revenue for mental health programs, IT, police staffing and training, victims funds, etc.

2. Mandatory gun insurance. I imagine liability insurance for an AR-15 would also be expensive; after all it's specifically designed to inflict mass casualties. But the government wouldn't dictate that cost; we'd let the free market decide.

3. Repeal the Dickey Amendment banning federal funding of research on gun violence. Reasonable people can debate policy, but if you're trying to head off basic research it makes it seem like you have something to hide.

4. Repeal all laws preventing doctors from talking with their patients about guns. These laws are unconstitutional, which is something gun rights advocates should appreciate. You can't trample the First Amendment in defense of the Second. People have a right to know that if they choose to own a gun for home defense, statistically their home will be less safe.

5. Repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. In this country we have the presumption of innocence. If gun owners, dealers, distributors and manufacturers aren't doing anything wrong then they have nothing to fear from our system of justice.

Note that this plan doesn't involve banning anything. We wouldn't be taking away anyone's freedom, just asking them to accept personal responsibility.
 
NHPlanner said:
Borrowing from a high school classmate of mine, who shared his thoughts last night on "what he'd do":

1. Tax guns and ammunition to reflect their true cost on society. An AR-15 is already pretty expensive so adding a tax won't keep it out of the hands of anyone who really wants one, but I'd earmark the revenue for mental health programs, IT, police staffing and training, victims funds, etc.

2. Mandatory gun insurance. I imagine liability insurance for an AR-15 would also be expensive; after all it's specifically designed to inflict mass casualties. But the government wouldn't dictate that cost; we'd let the free market decide.

3. Repeal the Dickey Amendment banning federal funding of research on gun violence. Reasonable people can debate policy, but if you're trying to head off basic research it makes it seem like you have something to hide.

4. Repeal all laws preventing doctors from talking with their patients about guns. These laws are unconstitutional, which is something gun rights advocates should appreciate. You can't trample the First Amendment in defense of the Second. People have a right to know that if they choose to own a gun for home defense, statistically their home will be less safe.

5. Repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. In this country we have the presumption of innocence. If gun owners, dealers, distributors and manufacturers aren't doing anything wrong then they have nothing to fear from our system of justice.

Note that this plan doesn't involve banning anything. We wouldn't be taking away anyone's freedom, just asking them to accept personal responsibility.
Click to expand...

That is by far the most rational, reasonable proposal I think I've ever read. I like it!

I saw some post on FB (*shudder*) with some sort of Obama thing from a pro-gun person about "taking away my rights*. Last I read, the Second Amendment does not specify that automatic weapons are a right. In fact, United States v. Miller specifically set forth that the Second Amendment does not prevent states from placing restrictions on certain weapons not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". We've seen too many die to sit back and feel content that our "rights" are somehow more important than preventing the murder of innocent people.
 
NHPlanner said:
Note that this plan doesn't involve banning anything. We wouldn't be taking away anyone's freedom, just asking them to accept personal responsibility.
Click to expand...
Those are actually some good ideas. And getting people to accept personal responsibility is icing on the cake.
 
JNA said:
I agree.
Click to expand...

I've advocated for a few of those myself with my pro-gun friends. It's amazing to me how vehemently they are against doctors talking to parents of children about the risks of guns in their homes. When it comes to the research aspect, the response I got was that the FBI already keeps a database so there's no need in putting federal dollars towards more research.

I also think there should be some sort of gun safety class taught in public schools. Maybe part of a health curriculum. Not hands on, but at least basic facts and information. We teach driver's ed and driving isn't a constitutional right. Would it help? I don't know. But at the very least, it would start getting some of the information out there.
 
gtpeach said:
I also think there should be some sort of gun safety class taught in public schools.
Click to expand...

Public schools should teach that, and many more "real life" items. I mean how often have you used advanced algebra in your life? I'd much rather have learned about retirement savings, money management, gun safety, mortgages, things like that.
 
NHPlanner said:
Borrowing from a high school classmate of mine, who shared his thoughts last night on "what he'd do":

1. Tax guns and ammunition to reflect their true cost on society. An AR-15 is already pretty expensive so adding a tax won't keep it out of the hands of anyone who really wants one, but I'd earmark the revenue for mental health programs, IT, police staffing and training, victims funds, etc.
Click to expand...
Depending on the amount of the tax, I think that this is reasonable. If it becomes cost prohibitive for the middle class, then that would be a different story. However, how would this have stopped the shooter in Orlando? He knew he was likely going to be killed and wanted to take as many people with him before he went. He could have maxed out his Credit Cards and emptied his account. It would still have happened.

NHPlanner said:
2. Mandatory gun insurance. I imagine liability insurance for an AR-15 would also be expensive; after all it's specifically designed to inflict mass casualties. But the government wouldn't dictate that cost; we'd let the free market decide.
Click to expand...
Being that AR-15 play such a small fraction in gun deaths (all rifles were about 3%) I don't see how this will make any of a difference. Furthermore, can you explain how this would prevent someone like the Orlando shooter who was already knew he was going to be killed. He could have just racked it all up on a credit card and not cared because he would not be responsible.

NHPlanner said:
3. Repeal the Dickey Amendment banning federal funding of research on gun violence. Reasonable people can debate policy, but if you're trying to head off basic research it makes it seem like you have something to hide.
Click to expand...
100% agree.

NHPlanner said:
4. Repeal all laws preventing doctors from talking with their patients about guns. These laws are unconstitutional, which is something gun rights advocates should appreciate. You can't trample the First Amendment in defense of the Second. People have a right to know that if they choose to own a gun for home defense, statistically their home will be less safe.
Click to expand...
I agree, only if the doctors are well educated in the matter. My doctor is not. I explained that my guns are stored in a large safe or a biometric lock box. She did not know what the biometric lockbox was. (and yes, during my last physical, she asked if there were guns in the house and how where they stored)

NHPlanner said:
5. Repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. In this country we have the presumption of innocence. If gun owners, dealers, distributors and manufacturers aren't doing anything wrong then they have nothing to fear from our system of justice.
Click to expand...
Sure, at the same time, let's also make sure that breweries, distilleries, and wineries can be charged for drunk driving deaths or other alcohol related incidences.

NHPlanner said:
Note that this plan doesn't involve banning anything. We wouldn't be taking away anyone's freedom, just asking them to accept personal responsibility.
Click to expand...

If one can not afford something, that per the constitution is classified as a right, because of increased government regulations, taxes, and other requirements, how would that not be taking away one's freedom. Afterall, one of the things we heard over and over again is about how the "Affordable Care Act" was designed to make sure that everyone had this "basic right" yet it resulted in making it unaffordable for some and raised the cost for a ton of others.

AG74683 said:
Public schools should teach that, and many more "real life" items. I mean how often have you used advanced algebra in your life? I'd much rather have learned about retirement savings, money management, gun safety, mortgages, things like that.
Click to expand...

I had a gun safety class in middle school. I agree 100% that there should be a base level of stuff that should be in all public schools that would teach people this kind of stuff.
 
M'skis... I think the idea of the tax is not that it would have created an insurmountable financial burden for the Orlando shooter, but that the tax would have helped to fund mental health programs, IT, police staffing and training that might have made it more likely that the system caught him prior or that options might've been more available to redirect him as far as mental health, capacity to investigate, etc.

Pundits & political blowhards are focused on silver bullets (from all directions), when honestly the only thing we can do is build hurdles that make it more likely for a bad guy to trip and attract attention.
 
Suburb Repairman said:
M'skis... I think the idea of the tax is not that it would have created an insurmountable financial burden for the Orlando shooter, but that the tax would have helped to fund mental health programs, IT, police staffing and training that might have made it more likely that the system caught him prior or that options might've been more available to redirect him as far as mental health, capacity to investigate, etc.

Pundits & political blowhards are focused on silver bullets (from all directions), when honestly the only thing we can do is build hurdles that make it more likely for a bad guy to trip and attract attention.
Click to expand...

Like I said, I don't think it is a bad idea as long as it does not result in it becoming a financial deterrent for those who would like to protect themselves. We do need to spend more in this country on mental health programs to prevent things like the Aurora Co Shooter. The guy in Orlando had a different agenda and it was likely multiple agendas.

Hink said:
My final argument, we have tried it your way for the last 200 years. It hasn't worked. It is getting worse every year. Maybe we give another try a go, and hope that we see less gun violence. I'm not so proud that I can't think that trying something different might curb these horrific events. Even if it means that I might be inconvenienced when purchasing my unnecessary, but wanted semi-automatic weapon.
Click to expand...

In all seriousness, do you read my posts or do you just respond to what you think they said.

We have not tried it my way for the past 200 years. We have not had background checks for the past 200 years ago. I don't quite understand why you will not acknowledge that I am in agreement that we need them?

Furthermore, in the late 1700's the primary weapon of the British Army was a muzzle-loading smoothbore flint-lock musket and a very primitive long rifle. Those weapons were also the same weapons that farmers, shopkeepers, and others in the American Colonies had at their disposal at the time of the revolutionary war. Today, most Americans to not have weapons that are on the same operational level of those who wish to harm us.

On a side note, if the media reports are correct, in addition to the two guns that the Orlando shooter had, he also had over 40 pounds of ammo. Depending on if he was carrying these (ammo plus preloaded 30-round magazines), how did he fit all of those on his body? Did he have those in a bag or backpack and if so, during reloads, this would have made the shooter vulnerable to a counter attack. Some parts of all of this just don't add up and I am starting to question if he had that many rounds on him or he had an accomplice.
 
michaelskis said:
Sure, at the same time, let's also make sure that breweries, distilleries, and wineries can be charged for drunk driving deaths or other alcohol related incidences.
Click to expand...


Not really weighing in, just pointing something out: They can be, and they insure against it. It's called dram shop liability, and it's expensive as hell and generally you have to get it from an excess and surplus lines insurance provider. I used to write some of these when I worked that few years in insurance.
 
AG74683 said:
That is by far the most rational, reasonable proposal I think I've ever read. I like it!

I saw some post on FB (*shudder*) with some sort of Obama thing from a pro-gun person about "taking away my rights*. Last I read, the Second Amendment does not specify that automatic weapons are a right. In fact, United States v. Miller specifically set forth that the Second Amendment does not prevent states from placing restrictions on certain weapons not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". We've seen too many die to sit back and feel content that our "rights" are somehow more important than preventing the murder of innocent people.
Click to expand...

The most reasonable proposal is to ban all assault weapons, confiscate those in circulation, and criminalize their possession.

Crazy, huh?
 
TOFB said:
The most reasonable proposal is to ban all assault weapons, confiscate those in circulation, and criminalize their possession.

Crazy, huh?
Click to expand...

Please define assault weapon.

Additionally, do you have data to show that they are more dangerous than alcohol and cars. What about Knives? I showed FBI data that explains that more people are killed by knives than all rifles, and assault rifles are a sub section of that ground and count for less than 4% of all gun deaths.
 
michaelskis said:
Please define assault weapon.

Additionally, do you have data to show that they are more dangerous than alcohol and cars. What about Knives? I showed FBI data that explains that more people are killed by knives than all rifles, and assault rifles are a sub section of that ground and count for less than 4% of all gun deaths.
Click to expand...

It's not about the fact that alcohol, cars, and knives are more dangerous, it's about the fact that guns (and assault weapons in particular) have the capability of killing many people in a short amount of time. I've never heard of a guy with a knife walking into a club and killing 49 people in short succession with it.

There is no one accepted definition of assault weapons, something that was highlighted many times after the Sandy Hook shooting. Most definitions say an assault weapon is one which provides for detachable magazines designed for a high rate of sustained fire for combat purposes.
 
AG74683 said:
It's not about the fact that alcohol, cars, and knives are more dangerous, it's about the fact that guns (and assault weapons in particular) have the capability of killing many people in a short amount of time. I've never heard of a guy with a knife walking into a club and killing 49 people in short succession with it.

There is no one accepted definition of assault weapons, something that was highlighted many times after the Sandy Hook shooting. Most definitions say an assault weapon is one which provides for detachable magazines designed for a high rate of sustained fire for combat purposes.
Click to expand...

With the exception of "for combat purposes" point, which is debatable as to what exactly that means, my .308 Winchester meets that definition. What makes a weapon for combat purposes? Cosmetics? Attachments? If I paint the wood on my deer rifle flat black is it an assault weapon? What if I replace the stock with a plastic "sport rifle" stock. Does that become an Assult Rifle?

This is my point, there is no real good way to draw the line in the sand with this and any lawyer or gun enthusiast would rip it apart.

If you want to ban fully automatic weapons, there is a clear line in the sand. However there are so few of those used in the US because you already need a special license to get one. If you want to ban explosive devices, I will applaud it. But there needs to be both a clear spacific definition and a data backed reason for it. Not just some arbitrary idea based on observation.
 
michaelskis said:
Please define assault weapon..
Click to expand...


I don't have a definition for assault weapon but the federal legislation from 1994 has a definition of semi-automatic assault weapon, which is as follows:


The term ‘semiautomatic assault weapon’ means--

‘(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms, known as--
‘(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);
‘(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
‘(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
‘(iv) Colt AR-15;
‘(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
‘(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;
‘(vii) Steyr AUG;
‘(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and
‘(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;

‘(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--
‘(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
‘(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
‘(iii) a bayonet mount;
‘(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
‘(v) a grenade launcher;

‘(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--
‘(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;
‘(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;
‘(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;
‘(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and
‘(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and

‘(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of--
‘(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
‘(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
‘(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and
‘(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.’.
Click to expand...
 
Most congressional Republicans oppose the push to pass a measure to ban gun sales to those on the terror watch list, arguing that would violate individuals' Constitutional right to bear arms.
They also maintain that many people are mistakenly added to that list and should not be subject to a broad prohibition.

Feinstein released updated data from the Government Accountability Office Wednesday that showed individuals on the terrorist watchlist passed a background check to purchase firearms or explosives 91% of the time.
FBI data showed that individuals on the watchlist were involved in firearm-related background checks 244 times -- 223 of the transactions were approved, and 21 were denied, according to the GAO.
Click to expand...

Donald Trump to meet with NRA on banning gun sales for people on terror watch list
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/15/politics/donald-trump-nra-meeting/index.html


A threat to highjack or crash a plane not ok but it is ok to buy a gun and kill/injure just as many ?
 
michaelskis said:
In all seriousness, do you read my posts or do you just respond to what you think they said.

We have not tried it my way for the past 200 years. We have not had background checks for the past 200 years ago. I don't quite understand why you will not acknowledge that I am in agreement that we need them?
Click to expand...

Background checks are great. They will do little, but they are a start. I understand you think that it is enough to just have background checks.

My point is that we should go too far, then back track. The second amendment is the most misunderstood (and blatantly misconstrued) amendment we have. If we have 5 liberal justices on the Supreme Court for any period of time (which is seeming more and more like a reality thanks to Trump), my guess is that we will start to see more and more sensible regulations coming out. The second amendment is as "strong" as it is because conservative activist judges have made it WAY more important and powerful than it ever should have been. Heller v. D.C. was a very politically driven decision...

I foresee much different politically driven decisions in the future...
 
Hink said:
Background checks are great. They will do little, but they are a start. I understand you think that it is enough to just have background checks.

My point is that we should go too far, then back track. The second amendment is the most misunderstood (and blatantly misconstrued) amendment we have. If we have 5 liberal justices on the Supreme Court for any period of time (which is seeming more and more like a reality thanks to Trump), my guess is that we will start to see more and more sensible regulations coming out. The second amendment is as "strong" as it is because conservative activist judges have made it WAY more important and powerful than it ever should have been. Heller v. D.C. was a very politically driven decision...

I foresee much different politically driven decisions in the future...
Click to expand...

I believe you may be correct in terms of the future. I do know several things though, the black market will explode with illegal guns, and those who were law abiding citizens will become criminals. Additionally, God help us all of the Feds ever decide to start a mass confiscation of simiautomatic weapons.


As for the no-fly terrorist watch list, they should never be permitted to buy guns while on the list.

Also along with those thoughts, let's ban all abortions and then start looking at if there are any situations that they might be permitted.
 
michaelskis said:
I believe you may be correct in terms of the future. I do know several things though, the black market will explode with illegal guns, and those who were law abiding citizens will become criminals. Additionally, God help us all of the Feds ever decide to start a mass confiscation of simiautomatic weapons.

Also along with those thoughts, let's ban all abortions and then start looking at if there are any situations that they might be permitted.
Click to expand...

Then we arrest the people who can't follow the law. It isn't some conspiracy, or crazy concept. Why would the removal of semi-automatic weapons from society need God to help us? Because people would become violent? Then shoot someone with that gun? :r:

Social issues are thankfully pretty well established in the country now. Women have the right to choose, LGBT people have the right to marry, and we can live in happiness in the 21st century. I do look forward to less discussions on social issues with the next President, as this race has pretty squarely been about international and economic issues.
 
Hink said:
Then we arrest the people who can't follow the law. It isn't some conspiracy, or crazy concept. Why would the removal of semi-automatic weapons from society need God to help us? Because people would become violent? Then shoot someone with that gun? :r:

Social issues are thankfully pretty well established in the country now. Women have the right to choose, LGBT people have the right to marry, and we can live in happiness in the 21st century. I do look forward to less discussions on social issues with the next President, as this race has pretty squarely been about international and economic issues.
Click to expand...

How well as that "arresting people who didn't follow the law" thing working out for Chicago?

On a side note, do you have a fire extinguisher in your house? Don't you trust the Fire Department to get there in time?
 
Last edited:
This morning, someone pointed out that to say the second amendment is about muskets, is no different than saying that the freedom of the press is about hand-cranked flatbed presses. Not high speed automatic printing presses that can spit out more than 20 magazines or newspapers a second... or photographs, motion pictures, recordings, websites, or video games.

Planit said:
Same reason you have a gun safe & lock.
Click to expand...
Not likely... I have those to prevent unauthorized users from accessing them. My fire extinguisher is under the sink for easy access in event of a fire, with the realization that it may not completely put out the fire, but it will give my family and I time to get to safety.
 
michaelskis said:
Not likely... I have those to prevent unauthorized users from accessing them. My fire extinguisher is under the sink for easy access in event of a fire, with the realization that it may not completely put out the fire, but it will give my family and I time to get to safety.
Click to expand...

My context for that is that you are a responsible person and take extra precautions. Having a fire extinguisher in your home is a responsible action. Owing a gun AND putting in your gun safe is a responsible action.



Also you have thrown up may "what ifs" & redirected the conversation to include fire extinguishers, abortion, alcohol, knives and the ACA in the last 24 hours. I'd like to stay on topic about specifics of firearms and the problematic easy acquisition of high capacity magazines, automatics, semi-automatics, etc. Not to deflect the conversation about knives. Its a great tactic in debates to try and "what if" anything to death.



I'm glad the NRA actually said something constructive this time (their proposal for some increased background/waiting checks) instead of saying "Ours thoughts and prayers are with you." as they (& others) have done before.
 
Planit said:
My context for that is that you are a responsible person and take extra precautions. Having a fire extinguisher in your home is a responsible action. Owing a gun AND putting in your gun safe is a responsible action.
Click to expand...
Thank you for clearing that up. I appreciate it and I agree.


Planit said:
Also you have thrown up may "what ifs" & redirected the conversation to include fire extinguishers, abortion, alcohol, knives and the ACA in the last 24 hours. I'd like to stay on topic about specifics of firearms and the problematic easy acquisition of high capacity magazines, automatics, semi-automatics, etc. Not to deflect the conversation about knives. Its a great tactic in debates to try and "what if" anything to death.
Click to expand...
The other items were brought up for various reasons. The conversation about knives was to point out that the perception of impact of assault rifles is not accurate. The abortion example was in response to the idea of pushing a regulation too far and scaling back. Additionally, the idea that we should ban guns because they kill people but still allow the killing of unborn children seems a bit ridiculous to me.

Planit said:
I'm glad the NRA actually said something constructive this time (their proposal for some increased background/waiting checks) instead of saying "Ours thoughts and prayers are with you." as they (& others) have done before.
Click to expand...
I don't trust the NRA Legislative Policy group for much of anything, but anytime they are willing to use common sense, it is a good day, rare, but good day.
 
Comparing access to firearms (semi-automatic or otherwise) to access to knives is a pretty retarded argument (yes, blunt choice of words but I would seriously question the mental development of somebody who is honestly making that comparison).

Knives of all types may cause many more injuries and deaths than firearms of whatever type each year but knives are present in a magnitude more homes (every?), offices, schools, etc. than firearms are. Based on the number of people who handle a knife each year, and how often most people handle a knife each year, it is quite a safe bet that you are proportionately much less likely to be injured or killed by a knife than by a firearm. :r:
 
WSU MUP Student said:
Comparing access to firearms (semi-automatic or otherwise) to access to knives is a pretty retarded argument (yes, blunt choice of words but I would seriously question the mental development of somebody who is honestly making that comparison).

Knives of all types may cause many more injuries and deaths than firearms of whatever type each year but knives are present in a magnitude more homes (every?), offices, schools, etc. than firearms are. Based on the number of people who handle a knife each year, and how often most people handle a knife each year, it is quite a safe bet that you are proportionately much less likely to be injured or killed by a knife than by a firearm. :r:
Click to expand...

I took a criminal psychology class in college so I'm kind of an expert, but I distinctly remember the professor talking about how knife crimes are viewed differently than crimes committed with a gun. A gun allows the perpetrator to remain relatively "detached" from the crime. They aren't up close and personal, all they do is pull a trigger and the bullet does the rest. The knife requires someone to be right up in the victims face. Supposedly probation boards generally view criminals with knife crimes in a different light.
 
WSU MUP Student said:
Comparing access to firearms (semi-automatic or otherwise) to access to knives is a pretty retarded argument (yes, blunt choice of words but I would seriously question the mental development of somebody who is honestly making that comparison).

Knives of all types may cause many more injuries and deaths than firearms of whatever type each year but knives are present in a magnitude more homes (every?), offices, schools, etc. than firearms are. Based on the number of people who handle a knife each year, and how often most people handle a knife each year, it is quite a safe bet that you are proportionately much less likely to be injured or killed by a knife than by a firearm. :r:
Click to expand...

Well there are an estimated 270 Million guns in the united states. What percentage of them are used in shooting a human?

I am not saying that we should ban knives, I am pointing out that people are looking in the wrong place for the solution. It would be like banning high performance tires as a way to reduce speeding tickets, despite them being used in a very small fraction of speeding events.

The sad part of all this is too many people let emotion of a very horrible situation cloud their judgment resulting in a false reality. The root of the problem is not the gun, but the person using it. Just like a knife, or the combination of alcohol and a car, a gun is just a tool.

AG74683 said:
I took a criminal psychology class in college so I'm kind of an expert, but I distinctly remember the professor talking about how knife crimes are viewed differently than crimes committed with a gun. A gun allows the perpetrator to remain relatively "detached" from the crime. They aren't up close and personal, all they do is pull a trigger and the bullet does the rest. The knife requires someone to be right up in the victims face. Supposedly probation boards generally view criminals with knife crimes in a different light.
Click to expand...

So it comes back to the person who is causing the crime...
 
Lets take a break from our regularly scheduled program to view this gem...

 
http://theslot.jezebel.com/heres-how-the-congressmen-who-have-gotten-the-most-cash-1782083985

Article above discusses the top 20 congressmen who received campaign/lobby money from the NRA & their responses to the Orlando shooting. Here's the summary below:

Lowest donation $31,000+
Highest donation $60,000+

Thoughts & prayers for victims = 13
Terrorist / ISIS to blame = 8
Obama to blame = 1
Need some steps on gun regulations = 0
Against any new gun regulations = 2
We should love & not hate = 2



Even FauxNews personalities O'Reilly & Carlson have come out and almost said there should be a ban on assault weapons:
http://theslot.jezebel.com/bill-oreilly-and-gretchen-carlson-both-called-for-assau-1782083969
 
CNN article shows it's easier to buy a gun than it is to get:
1) drivers license
2) passport
3) cold medicine
4) divorce
5) a pet
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/16/health/getting-gun-ease-trnd/index.html



There are only 13 states where State Licensing Requirements for Gun Purchase or Possession is required:
California
Connecticut
District of Columbia
Hawaii
Iowa
Illinois
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Nebraska
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Rhode Island
 
Planit said:
CNN article shows it's easier to buy a gun than it is to get:
1) drivers license
2) passport
3) cold medicine
4) divorce
5) a pet
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/16/health/getting-gun-ease-trnd/index.html



There are only 13 states where State Licensing Requirements for Gun Purchase or Possession is required:
California
Connecticut
District of Columbia
Hawaii
Iowa
Illinois
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Nebraska
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Rhode Island
Click to expand...

I think that there should be clarification with the terminology of licence. A couple of those states, the "licence" is required if you don't already have a concealed carry permit, and it issued at the time of purchase, after the background check as performed by an FFL is completed. A copy is then submitted to local law enforcement within 7 days of purchase. Essentially, it is just proof of background check and proof of purchase. Personally, I think that should be done in all 50 states.
 
michaelskis said:
I think that there should be clarification with the terminology of [STRIKEOUT]licence[/STRIKEOUT]license. A couple of those states, the[STRIKEOUT] "licence"[/STRIKEOUT] "license" is required if you don't already have a concealed carry permit, and it issued at the time of purchase, after the background check as performed by an FFL is completed. A copy is then submitted to local law enforcement within 7 days of purchase. Essentially, it is just proof of background check and proof of purchase. Personally, I think that should be done in all 50 states.
Click to expand...

The CNN article link has a link in it that takes you to a site with those clarifications / terminology. Enjoy.
 
If I am reading this correctly, the bills before congress right now are only to restrict those who are on terrorist watch list from purchasing guns or a minimum of 72 hour waiting period? Is this correct?

Personally, if this is all it is, I don't foresee why anyone would oppose that.
 
michaelskis said:
If I am reading this correctly, the bills before congress right now are only to restrict those who are on terrorist watch list from purchasing guns or a minimum of 72 hour waiting period? Is this correct?

Personally, if this is all it is, I don't foresee why anyone would oppose that.
Click to expand...

One might oppose it if they are on the terrorist watch list.

How do you know if your on a terrorist watch list or the no fly list? Does homeland security send out letters or do you just find out when you try to fly?
 
Big Owl said:
One might oppose it if they are on the terrorist watch list.

How do you know if your on a terrorist watch list or the no fly list? Does homeland security send out letters or do you just find out when you try to fly?
Click to expand...

Publishers Clearing House type mailer...


Congratulations! You may already be on the Terrorists No Fly Watchlist! Call this number and find out.
 
Big Owl said:
One might oppose it if they are on the terrorist watch list.

How do you know if your on a terrorist watch list or the no fly list? Does homeland security send out letters or do you just find out when you try to fly?
Click to expand...

You find out when you go to buy an AR-15?
 
Big Owl said:
One might oppose it if they are on the terrorist watch list.

How do you know if your on a terrorist watch list or the no fly list? Does homeland security send out letters or do you just find out when you try to fly?
Click to expand...

https://www2.fbi.gov/terrorinfo/counterrorism/faqs.htm

Quite literally, you don't!

"Can I find out if I am in the TSDB (Terrorism Screening Database)?

The TSC (Terrorism Screening Center) cannot reveal whether a particular person is in the TSDB. The TSDB remains an effective tool in the government's counterterrorism efforts because its contents are not disclosed. If TSC revealed who was in the TSDB, terrorist organizations would be able to circumvent the purpose of the terrorist watchlist by determining in advance which of their members are likely to be questioned or detained."
Click to expand...

So basically you won't know if you're on it until it's too late. If they don't release the list to everyone though, wouldn't it be a red flag for folks who may be terrorists to know if they're on the watch list? Go buy a gun, get turned down for no other reason...you'd probably have a good idea why at that point.
 
I have a climate change question.

In terms of environmental regulations, how does the US rank on a global scale? Furthermore, we hear all the time about global temperatures because lets face it, just weather does not stop at geopolitical boundaries. But how has the US done in terms of average temperatures over the past 100+ years compared to other parts of the globe. I don't think Trump or Clinton have commented on the environment all that much and it makes me wonder if either of them will work with other countries to improve global environmental conditions.
 
michaelskis said:
I have a climate change question.

In terms of environmental regulations, how does the US rank on a global scale? Furthermore, we hear all the time about global temperatures because lets face it, just weather does not stop at geopolitical boundaries. But how has the US done in terms of average temperatures over the past 100+ years compared to other parts of the globe. I don't think Trump or Clinton have commented on the environment all that much and it makes me wonder if either of them will work with other countries to improve global environmental conditions.
Click to expand...


This might help with some data

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2016/06/20/may_2016_was_the_hottest_may_on_record.html
 
michaelskis said:
I have a climate change question.

In terms of environmental regulations, how does the US rank on a global scale? Furthermore, we hear all the time about global temperatures because let's face it, just weather does not stop at geopolitical boundaries. But how has the US done in terms of average temperatures over the past 100+ years compared to other parts of the globe. I don't think Trump or Clinton have commented on the environment all that much and it makes me wonder if either of them will work with other countries to improve global environmental conditions.
Click to expand...

Planit said:
This might help with some data

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2016/06/20/may_2016_was_the_hottest_may_on_record.html
Click to expand...


Yea... I know.

But I was wondering about 3 additional items:

  1. Is there data that shows 100 years worth of average temperatures in the US?
  2. Is there information about how the US ranks on a global scale when it comes to environmental regulations and what is being done to get those below us at least up to our requirements?
  3. Has any of the major candidates said anything about what they would do to help other countries get up to where we are in terms of environmental regulations?
 
michaelskis said:
Yea... I know.

But I was wondering about 3 additional items:

  1. Is there data that shows 100 years worth of average temperatures in the US?
  2. Is there information about how the US ranks on a global scale when it comes to environmental regulations and what is being done to get those below us at least up to our requirements?
  3. Has any of the major candidates said anything about what they would do to help other countries get up to where we are in terms of environmental regulations?
Click to expand...

This is probably what you're looking for on #1 - https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/weather-climate/temperature.html. That chart is pretty clear that since about 1980 we've seen drastic increases in mean temperature. Seems to be that way worldwide as well.

Maybe this is more what you're looking for on #2? http://epi.yale.edu./country-rankings. Looks like as of 2016, the US is ranked 26th. That's out of 180 countries. "The EPI Data ranks countries’ performance on high-priority environmental issues in two areas: protection of human health and protection of ecosystems." It's actually a pretty cool website. The breakdown per country is pretty awesome. http://epi.yale.edu./country/united-states-america. Our air quality increase for the last 10 years is great to see. Average exposure to NO2 and household air quality has gotten much better since 1997.

I don't think the US spending tax payer dollars to assist other countries in their endeavors to improve environmental regulation would go over too well with the general public. It's an issue we need to face, but we can't go it alone.
 
AG74683 said:
This is probably what you're looking for on #1 - https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/weather-climate/temperature.html. That chart is pretty clear that since about 1980 we've seen drastic increases in mean temperature. Seems to be that way worldwide as well.

Maybe this is more what you're looking for on #2? http://epi.yale.edu./country-rankings. Looks like as of 2016, the US is ranked 26th. That's out of 180 countries. "The EPI Data ranks countries' performance on high-priority environmental issues in two areas: protection of human health and protection of ecosystems." It's actually a pretty cool website. The breakdown per country is pretty awesome. http://epi.yale.edu./country/united-states-america. Our air quality increase for the last 10 years is great to see. Average exposure to NO2 and household air quality has gotten much better since 1997.

I don't think the US spending tax payer dollars to assist other countries in their endeavors to improve environmental regulation would go over too well with the general public. It's an issue we need to face, but we can't go it alone.
Click to expand...

Awesome. Thank you for the links. For the most part I agree with your thoughts on tax dollars, however I do think that we need to do what we can to provide technological data and environmental information with all 180 countries on the list, especially those ranked 27 and below. I also think that we need to learn from 1-25 and find ways to provide environmentally friendly measures that are as cost effective, if not more cost effective, than what we have currently. It is wonderful that there are electric cars out there, and I applaud Tesla for starting to bring down the cost, but it is still out of the price range of most middle class people in the US, and most people on the planet. The same goes for alternative energy production. We are moving in the right direction, but the ROI is so long that most people won't make the jump. We are paying a little extra for some items in our house because they are quick win items, but the big stuff like installing solar panels or geothermal are not cost effective as of yet.
 
One week after the Orlando Massacre, the Senate votes down 4 gun measures (2 by Rs & 2 by Ds). So it's still just a clusterfuck.

(Summary by USAToday)
• The first, sponsored by Grassley, would have called for research on the causes of mass shootings and increased funding for the background check system, although it would not have expanded the types of gun sales that require them.

•The second, sponsored by Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., would have expanded background check requirements to include private sales and sales over the Internet.

•The third, sponsored by Cornyn, would allow federal law enforcement officials to delay gun sales to suspected terrorists, including those on watch and no-fly lists, for three days and then halt the sales, but only after proving probable cause before a judge.

•The final amendment, sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., would have allowed the attorney general to halt sales to suspected terrorists and allow individuals to appeal to the Department of Justice if they are denied a firearm.





Oh BTW - How's that SCOTUS confirmation going?

The definition of "obstruction" is the US Senate.
 
Planit said:
Oh BTW - How's that SCOTUS confirmation going?

The definition of "obstruction" is the US Senate.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Which proves my point about all the hand-wringing concerning the Presidential Election. What does it matter? We keep electing these self-serving twits to the House and Senate in droves and nothing changes. We've got exactly what we deserve.
 
I'm not one to believe in "signs" or anything like that, but the massive downpour and subsequent flooding in London during the Brexit vote could probably be construed as one...
 
State's Rights.... NRA don't care ;)

The National Rifle Association and the Hawaii Rifle Association had called on their members to oppose the registration bill and the measure barring those convicted of stalking or sex assault from owning or possessing a gun.

"This is an extremely dangerous bill. Exercising a constitutional right is not inherently suspicious," Amy Hunter for the National Rifle Association, said in May. "Hawaii will now be treating firearms as suspect and subject to constant monitoring."
Click to expand...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...te-to-put-gun-owners-in-federal-database.html
 
12961555_10154038269487380_2216143508504923479_n.jpg
 
Back
Top