ptatc

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Oct 6, 2017 -> 11:32 AM) Gun companies literally claim that guns dont kill people. Tobacco contributed to deaths, but the still have trouble directly correlating it to the ailness that it causes. Guns literally kill directly with zero other function. They are very comparable both from the perspective that they are not necessary in daily life and in that they were considered a huge part of the american fabric and economy. The only difference is that the tobacco industry cannot and was not able to hide behind an outdated Amendment. They only kill if aimed at a living being. When you use them for skeet/trap shooting there is no living being. Tobacco is only used by living being. Firearms have another purpose, tobacco does not.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Oct 6, 2017 -> 11:49 AM) If hunting/sport are the only real "other functions" for a gun that killing people, then why not only allow guns used for those? indy cars arent street legal...Funny cars arent street legal.... why are there guns that literally serve no purpose legal? Because you can any firearm for hunting or sport shooting. I'm not sure which ones you would exclude.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 5, 2017 -> 03:36 PM) Part of it is that the hardcore gun people don't believe people calling for gun control are acting in good faith and that their end goal is 100% ban and confiscation. Give an inch, they'll take a mile, so they will screech and holler and scream against any and every regulation. Just go read any gun website/forum for a taste of the rhetoric. Even with this bump fire stock thing which many will freely admit are dumb and pointless and nobody really cares about them in particular, they're still adamantly opposed because then "the next step is banning all semi-automatic guns." Conversely, I don't see many people calling for outright bans or confiscations. This is true. however, people will point rightfully so to previous examples in history where "giving an inch" did lead to "taking a mile." i used the example of the seat belt laws. While I agree there should be greater restrictions, I can understand this attitude from people.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Oct 5, 2017 -> 03:19 PM) The people who wrote the second amendment had no idea guns would be what they are today. Those things took forever to load, didnt fire at nearly the velocity and bullets werent mass produced. Its a joke standing behind that thing all the time. Start with regulating the production of ammo, then ban manufacturing of things like assault rifle and semi-autos that can be converted and then work on making guns smarter. It shouldnt be that difficult. I agree with the assault rifle part but not the semi-automatic. They should ban any external device that can modify them but not the Firearm itself. I like the idea of the smart gun someone stated. Some type of finger print device that would allow for use a certain period of time after a print is entered.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Oct 5, 2017 -> 02:43 PM) The fact that they won't even have the discussion on it is ridiculous, or see the need for a discussion. Other countries have implemented gun laws and saw benefits from them, I'm not saying that they would all work here but we should at least discuss, investigate, and try to make an impact, because we've all seen what doing nothing does. I agree with this. As I've said before the primary problem with any issue today is the hardliners on either side and no one willing to compromise.

QUOTE (bigruss22 @ Oct 5, 2017 -> 12:54 PM) What angers me about republican officials (and no it's not all) is that so many immediately came out and said that no legislation was or should be in review after these attacks. Both Ryan and McConnell said this, and it frustrates me to no end that the attacks are getting larger, but they still refuse to see if there is something they can do at a legislative level to help fix the issue. And most of those responses I don't feel are genuine, I mean how can any elected official, especially at a federal level, think that they don't have any say in changing a s***ty status quo. I really feel that these politicians are hand strung by their republican voters to keep the status quo on gun law, just from the fear that any change would impact freedoms. So off we go into the same cycle. I agree. However, as someone said, and I'm not sure which politician is was, any reasonable restrictions (short of a ban) would not have prevented this guy from obtaining legal weapons, unless you penalize him for his father's crimes. I think restrictions are reasonable, but I I'm sure if any ones used anywhere would have prevented this.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 5, 2017 -> 12:39 PM) Not since McDonnell v Chicago in 2010 came down. Chicago tried putting heavy restrictions on them, but those were struck down too. And just a couple of years ago Illinois's lack of a concealed carry was ruled unconstitutional. After Heller, it's really, really hard to regulate guns in a manner that would put a substantial dent in gun violence imo. Thanks. I don't live in Chicago so I'm not really familiar with the issues. I knew the part about concealed carry as it applied to the State.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 5, 2017 -> 12:10 PM) My favorite parallel to the gun debate is abortion, with the sides flip-flopped. Both groups on one side feel that fully illegal and never acceptable is the way to go, while the other wants to have no restrictions at all, unwilling to let even the common sense stuff happen in fear of the slippery slope argument. Good analogy. The hard lines on both sides is what frustrates me. I get ideology, however, in almost all cases taking any issue to an extreme either way rarely is good for everyone. People need to find compromise to do at least some good. i forget who said the quote about the budget Illinois passed but it was something to the effect of "if everyone is unhappy it must have been a good compromise"

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 5, 2017 -> 11:34 AM) The ATF is the board currently. They evaluate products all the time. It's already illegal to modify your rifle into a fully automatic rifle. You can make your semi-auto into a "nearly" fully auto using either these bump fire stocks which are currently okay'd by the ATF or just by holding onto your belt loop as it fires (this exploits the same recoil physics that makes the bump stock work). And while modifying a semi into an actual fully automatic weapon is very, very illegal, it's trivially easy to do so. The only way to change that would be to ban semi-automatic weapons. I guess the problem is is that the ATF's scope is somewhat limited to only considering the actual firing mechanism rather than the gun as a whole. You could rewrite regulations to change that, but I'm not sure how or what you'd change to accomplish reductions in gun violence. Biggest dent would be severely restricting or banning handguns, but you'd have to overturn Heller and McDonald or rewrite the Constitution in order to do that. Isn't there a ban on handguns in Chicago?

QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 5, 2017 -> 11:28 AM) The point is to reduce the amount of situations where a gun is available. Just like, in the sentence preceding yours, no, we will not be able to insert an intervention into all violent scenarios, but we could insert them where we can and REDUCE VIOLENCE. If the situations where guns were involved was reduced, lethality would reduce, but here's the important thing: maybe not all violence. No, I do not think all gun murders being eliminated is a likely goal. But reducing them is a very worthy goal, something that should be sought after and tweaked and revised toward the best solutions daily. I agree. i have not disagreed with this point. My problem is with the posters stating that if firearms should be banned or have no use. i don't think this happens anywhere and shouldn't happen.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 5, 2017 -> 11:28 AM) There are places where handguns aren't as ubiquitous so there isn't one always readily available. Agreed. There is justification with that, ease of hiding etc. I'm talking about a total ban where the hunting/sports firearms are banned as well. i can't speak for everyone here but my personal view is that these are the types which have justification for ownership and use.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Oct 5, 2017 -> 11:13 AM) No, that’s the extreme conclusion. Automobiles have safety regulation, they are tested many times for multiple scenarios and things like seatbelts became mandatory and airbags are in pretty much all new vehicles. And vehicles that are considered dangerous, not street worthy, you are not allowed to drive. Yea, some cars can possibly reach 200MPH, but you don’t see rocket powered cars or nascar capable cars driving around your block every day? Why? Because that s*** is unsafe and we all know it. Something has to be done, a compromise needs to be made somewhere. People shouldn’t be able to easily modify their guns to become an automatic weapon easily. If you are stocking up on ammo, someone somewhere should ask “why is this happening? Why does he need this?” All of these are reasonable.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 5, 2017 -> 11:18 AM) Out of 248 Republicans in the House, 247 voted for Paul Ryan and Paul Ryan brought the bill I noted to the floor. Literally 1. Kim Jong Un has greater opposition when he calls for a vote. Let me ask you this. Have you agreed with every single thing every politician you ever voted for did. Did you vote for Blagoevich? You obviously approved of all of his crimes. Again you are looking at it far too dichotomously. A person is right or wrong all the time. Real life isn't like that.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 5, 2017 -> 11:05 AM) That's a key part of a lot of the "gang" violence. It's a couple of dudes getting mad, often escalating things on social media these days, and then shooting each other over it. It's not planned out turf wars like it would have been a couple of decades ago because there's so little structure an hierarchy. If you can stop that confrontation before it gets too heated, you can stop a shooting. If there's no gun available in the first place, you can stop a shooting. Is there any place in the world where firearms are totally banned? Within at least a semi-free society.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 5, 2017 -> 08:44 AM) If the Republican representative is voting for a speaker who brings legislation removing permitting requirements to the floor of their legislative chamber...even if they vote against the legislation, the speaker and the party are choosing what to bring to the floor. You may have voted for your representative so that you can get your taxes cut. Your representative may even vote against the upcoming bill to allow concealed carry across state lines or whatever the next one is. But they're also supporting the people setting the agenda. You may have wanted lower taxes, but Paul Ryan wants more people who are having their mental illness treatments paid for through the Social Security administration to buy guns, and if you voted for someone who supported Paul Ryan - congratulations, you also supported that. Again the "if" Were all of these votes and support unanimous. Your comment was not "if" they voted this way or if they supported Ryan. It was ALL of you are the cause of this. The everyone without exception comment you made is where I have the issue.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 5, 2017 -> 08:40 AM) Take a look at the thread. 59 people were just brutally murdered. You have a bond with your son involving this and according to you that is your reason for not being able to imagine a world without them. Turn around and look at how that statement looks to my eyes. I read what you said and also saw an underlying "I can't imagine a world where these 59 people weren't murdered". I can equally get to "sure those 59 people were murdered but this helps my relationship with my son and that's more important to me, so I won't even attempt to picture a world where those 59 people aren't dead." So yeah, I think that's a little creepy. Those 59 people won't be having any bond with their families again. That's fine. You can think it's creepy. But also remember there is no such thing as a gun ban. Even in the UK the type of firearms I use are legal and can be obtained with permits. If said all along I'm for restrictions especially with high capacity firearms. If you can't determine the difference between the firearms I use and what was used in this case, you need to look at the cases a little closer. i know you tend to believe things are cut and dry or yes and no. All Republicans bad. All firearms bad. But these issues are not that dichotomous.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Oct 4, 2017 -> 11:17 PM) I only called you out on this because you were on a roll with the spelling errors haha. Wouldn't have even crossed my mind otherwise. rightfully so. I was wrong on all of them.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 4, 2017 -> 09:49 PM) Creepy. but oh so correct.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 4, 2017 -> 09:17 PM) Basically laws at the state level have gotten even worse in states Republicans control. We are now up to 14 states that allow concealed carry without a license. 10 states now force guns to be allowed on college campuses. Note how above someone said that doctors should be able to tell people whether someone they're treating has a gun? Iowa this year is latest state offering additional privacy protections for firearm owners so that people can't find that information, and they added Stand your Ground as well. Republican control but do ALL Republicans vote that way. The generalizations of stereotyping everyone exactly the same are disturbing. I just don't understand the philosophy of stereotyping everyone in a group.

QUOTE (Tony @ Oct 4, 2017 -> 08:29 PM) Cam Newton...dumb. The NFL is on a roll this year. Can you imagine if regular people acted in these ways at their workplace? It's getting harder and harder to like the NFL these days.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 4, 2017 -> 09:10 PM) This is an insane worldview to have in my opinion. And you are entitled to that opinion. I just happen to disagree. Just an example. My teenage son and i disagree and see eye to eye on very little right, I know common at this age. however, one thing we can always do together hunt and skeet shoot. I realize many people don't understand it, especially from an urban setting. It's a great hobby and sport.

QUOTE (ChiSox59 @ Oct 4, 2017 -> 03:28 PM) I still think the trade was a player light. Sale is that good. There is no way to get equal value for a HOF talent lefty pitcher. The return will always be light because teams just won't give that much up. The White Sox just need to hope that Moncada and Kopech become center pieces on a team with a long run of playoff teams. That's the only way it will be worth it.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 4, 2017 -> 08:53 PM) Not really. You might be referring to the inept people we elect to represent us. Also, what a god awful world that would be! Could you imagine....no guns? How could we survive?!?! It's certainly worth tens of thousands of Americans dying each year so that little Timmy on the farm can shoot tin cans. He has a point. It's the people that must take everything to extremes, see everything as us and them that make any agreement or compromise impossible. You can't have gun control when one side wants no restriction and the other wants a ban with no working to the middle. It's the same with healthcare. One side wants total healthcare the other wants a useless minimal version. They portray an us and them and nothing gets done. It would be an awful world without firearms.

QUOTE (Wanne @ Oct 4, 2017 -> 07:11 PM) Ok...I'm going off the top of my head here...but that law was aimed more at not allowing people collecting social security (old people) to purchase weapons. I'll have to go back and look (because honestly...I trust CNN links about as much as National Inquirer crap). That really wasn't what I'm referring to anyway. I'm referring to ANYONE under psychological care...not just SSA recipients. Pretty sure that was the issue. Again...I'm going off my faint memory but will look it up. Also...your last comment is one of the things that loses votes for Democrats in my opinion. That whole, "if you voted Republican...you voted to throw Granny off the cliff" kinda crap. It just doesn't work....thought maybe Democrats would have learned that last November. Let's not forget...Barry had complete control of the House and Senate for a few years...and didn't DO. JACK. SQUAT. I love this line. Hope you don't mind but I'm going to steal it for work tomorrow. Most of the common TVs at the university, lunch room, common areas, are tuned to CNN all day.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 4, 2017 -> 05:57 PM) Just remember everyone who is agreeing that there should be some training or registration or literally anything that anyone has said that we should do - if you vote for a single Republican at the state or national level, you are voting against that. You are currently voting for less registration, less training, for legal gun sales to people who are being treated for various mental illnesses. so you're saying that every single Republican at the state and national level has voted against any measure?