[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by ColdNoMore

So let's do nothing.
So let's do nothing.
So let's do nothing.


Since legislation is ineffective...why have ANY laws?

Define the problem.
Gather facts.
Come to a trial conclusion.
Check the trial conclusion.
Come to a final conclusion.

Deal with valid sources, be realistic, eliminate should, would could from your vocabulary. Assess all of the life experiences you have had and seen.

[Wiotte]

Innate and learned paranoia has created the gun crises in this country. It will never be resolved and minds will not be changed for many many generations to come. The 2nd is being used to justify this paranoia as a right rather than as a mental illness.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ColdNoMore]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

Define the problem.
Gather facts.
Come to a trial conclusion.
Check the trial conclusion.
Come to a final conclusion.

Deal with valid sources, be realistic, eliminate should, would could from your vocabulary. Assess all of the life experiences you have had and seen.

The "problem" and "facts"...are indisputably evident.

Just as the rabid opposition to ANY legislation regarding firearms...is well-defined.

The proof of that, is the fact that legislation against the sales of bump stocks...has so far been successfully forgotten/buried.

Next?

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by ColdNoMore

The "problem" and "facts"...are indisputably evident.

Just as the rabid opposition to ANY legislation regarding firearms...is well-defined.

The proof of that, is the fact that legislation against the sales of bump stocks...has so far been successfully forgotten/buried.

Next?

I don't have a gun. It surprised me when half my neighbors in both Villages we lived in had guns. They are retired people who held responsible positions in society, many having to carry cash to the bank on a daily basis. They know guns and they are comfortable with them.

As we live and grow, we learn. The people that I have met here in the last ten years who own guns have taught me much. I still don't want any, but I like to know that if society keeps changing, and the unrealistic are put in charge again, and law breakers are allowed to stay here, that I too can know that arming myself is an option.

[Trayderjoe]

Originally Posted by ColdNoMore

And the rabid, gun-obsessed crowd continues to strain credulity and expose their desperation...with inane comparisons.

If meaningful and reasonable regulations couldn't be passed after the slaughter of FIRST-GRADERS at Sandy Hook...what have we come to?

I mean cripes, even after Las Vegas and the overwhelming support from the public of banning bump stocks...it still HASN'T come to pass.

Why is that?

Originally Posted by ColdNoMore

So let's do nothing.
So let's do nothing.
So let's do nothing.


Since legislation is ineffective...why have ANY laws?

Originally Posted by ColdNoMore

The "problem" and "facts"...are indisputably evident.

Just as the rabid opposition to ANY legislation regarding firearms...is well-defined.

The proof of that, is the fact that legislation against the sales of bump stocks...has so far been successfully forgotten/buried.

Next?

I am curious as to which facts are evident? Do you mean that the fact that exists that 29 people per day are killed by drunken drivers? The fact that in Chicago with strict gun laws, there are still over 500 gun related homicides?

What is your stance on the phrase, guns don't kill people, people kill people? Do you have the same stance with the phrase, cars don't kill people, people kill people? If not, why not? The statistics that there are more deaths by DUI than by gun don't lie. If you do agree with the phrase, why are people NOT screaming for car/alcohol control and background checks for people looking to buy a car?

I find it curious that members of the "right" are vilified for their position on guns, yet members of the anti-gun side continue to shout down the "right" and have not yet provided data to show that legal law abiding citizens are mishandling their guns. There are plenty of system failures but those are not being attacked.

There are existing gun laws. How are they not sufficient? Please present your evidence of how each law is ineffective. Is it truly the law that is ineffective, or is it the inconsistent use and failure of government agencies to update the background check database? Could it be the privacy issues with flagging mental health issue people in the database? Or how about in the recent Florida shooting, the lack of response by the various agencies who were alerted to the potential of the perpetrator in advance but DID NOT ACT on that information. Please be outraged! You should be since the very agencies you seem to believe will keep you safe have FAILED the victims of that tragedy. And where is the outrage with the perpetrator of the crime?

The reality is I don't believe that cars should be more regulated, but if you stick to the facts, and your position still is that guns need even more control, then you must take an even stronger stance that cars and alcohol absolutely need to be controlled. The data says you can't have it both ways.

Gracie pointed out that this is a morality issue and was attacked for it. Hint, she is right. There is an excellent Op-Ed in today's Daily Sun by Walter Williams. Have you read it? Coincidentally, he is discussing gun control, death by drunken driving and morality.

I have asked the question, where is the uproar as it pertains to drunken driving. How any people have expressed outrage at the tragic loss of life of the Homosassa woman killed by a drunk driver? Go back through the posts in this topic and tell me. Go ahead. There are more anti gun posts than posts regarding the woman and the tragedy that her family is going through.

The answer continues to be, and you have proved it once again, that woman died, but it isn't sensational enough for you to even take one moment to express your outrage over her death. Why is that?

[ColdNoMore]

Originally Posted by Trayderjoe

I am curious as to which facts are evident? Do you mean that the fact that exists that 29 people per day are killed by drunken drivers? The fact that in Chicago with strict gun laws, there are still over 500 gun related homicides?

What is your stance on the phrase, guns don't kill people, people kill people? Do you have the same stance with the phrase, cars don't kill people, people kill people? If not, why not? The statistics that there are more deaths by DUI than by gun don't lie. If you do agree with the phrase, why are people NOT screaming for car/alcohol control and background checks for people looking to buy a car?

I find it curious that members of the "right" are vilified for their position on guns, yet members of the anti-gun side continue to shout down the "right" and have not yet provided data to show that legal law abiding citizens are mishandling their guns. There are plenty of system failures but those are not being attacked.

There are existing gun laws. How are they not sufficient? Please present your evidence of how each law is ineffective. Is it truly the law that is ineffective, or is it the inconsistent use and failure of government agencies to update the background check database? Could it be the privacy issues with flagging mental health issue people in the database? Or how about in the recent Florida shooting, the lack of response by the various agencies who were alerted to the potential of the perpetrator but DID NOT ACT on that information. Please be outraged! You should be since the very agencies you seem to believe will keep you safe have FAILED the victims of that tragedy. And where is the outrage with the perpetrator of the crime?

The reality is I don't believe that cars should be more regulated, but if you stick to the facts, and your position still is that guns need even more control, then you must take an even stronger stance that cars and alcohol absolutely need to be controlled. The data says you can't have it both ways.

Gracie pointed out that this is a morality issue and was attacked for it. Hint, she is right. There is an excellent Op-Ed in today's Daily Sun by Walter Williams. Have you read it? Coincidentally, he is discussing gun control, death by drunken driving and morality.

I have asked the question, where is the uproar as it pertains to drunken driving. How any people have expressed outrage at the tragic loss of life of the Homosassa woman killed by a drunk driver? Go back through the posts in this topic and tell me. Go ahead. There are more anti gun posts than posts regarding the woman and the tragedy that her family is going through.

The answer continues to be, and you have proved it once again, that woman died, but it isn't sensational enough for you to even take one moment to express your outrage over her death. Why is that?

Serious question here...why do you love guns so much?


And before you even go there, I have owned a long gun, shotgun and handgun for hunting...since I was about 15.

And yet, I have no problem with tightening up legislation.

Why do you?


Minor edit: My own pistol was purchased when I was in my 20's, but I had use of my Dad's during my teens...but only when we were hunting.

[tomwed]

I think we all lost someone due to drunk driving.

Someone brought up the dangers of texting and driving. I don't know anyone who died due to texting and driving. I'll bet when my son and grandson are my age they will.

That doesn't provide any answers or comfort. It's just something I'm thinking about.

[Trayderjoe]

Originally Posted by ColdNoMore

Serious question here...why do you love guns so much?


And before you even go there, I have owned a long gun, shotgun and handgun for hunting...since I was about 15.

And yet, I have no problem with tightening up legislation.

Why do you?


Minor edit: My own pistol was purchased when I was in my 20's, but I had use of my Dad's during my teens...but only when we were hunting.

What I love is my country and the rights that I have, which includes the right to debate topics and express my views, as well as to possess a firearm if I so desire. What I love is that the United States of America is a Republic (and we affirm that in the Pledge of Allegiance), that our founding fathers had the foresight to set up a system whereby a state like California cannot tell Florida what they want Florida to enact simply because there are more voters in California than Florida.

I would submit that my posts have been factual and without flaming or rhetoric. What I question is blanket condemnation without specific, constructive dialogue. Honestly, do you think your post is constructive, especially the red highlighted section?:

"And the rabid, gun-obsessed crowd continues to strain credulity and expose their desperation...with inane comparisons.

If meaningful and reasonable regulations couldn't be passed after the slaughter of FIRST-GRADERS at Sandy Hook...what have we come to?

I mean cripes, even after Las Vegas and the overwhelming support from the public of banning bump stocks...it still HASN'T come to pass.

Why is that?"

The two most glaring issues that continues to be overlooked are:

1) The system failures that have allowed perpetrators to do harm. Why is the uproar around gun control and NOT around the system failures?

2) The lack of people being held responsible and accountable for their decisions and actions.

Instead, inflammatory rhetoric is thrown out there without necessarily being truthful, but why use the truth to have a meaningful dialogue when you can fan the flames? A perfect example, is an AR-15 an assault rifle? You know the answer is no, but why are the anti-gun proponents NOT correcting this obvious misleading characterization of this type of rifle? Unfortunately the rhetoric and misinformation outweighs the good and you end up with a ban everything message (or the perception that is what is being called for), which negates debate on things like bump stocks.

Why is there an opposition to allow teachers to be armed IF
1) They decide that they wish to carry a weapon
2) They complete a comprehensive training curriculum BEFORE they can carry?

Due to the rhetoric, people are being inflamed by fear not facts. There are teachers that are former police or military that might not have a problem carrying a weapon. I would submit that if there was a concern about a specific teacher having a weapon, perhaps that teacher shouldn't be a teacher?

Unfortunately there appears to be a desire for a lot of give on one side, and not much willingness to work on constructive improvements. Do you think less rhetoric and name calling might actually benefit the discussion?

I still haven't gotten your answer as to why you haven't taken the time to condemn the death of the Homosassa woman at the hands of a criminal who was DUI, as well as the death of 29 people on a daily basis due to alcohol related automobile deaths. Why is that?

[Polar Bear]

Originally Posted by Trayderjoe

...Honestly, do you think your post is constructive, especially the red highlighted section?:

[I]"...with inane comparisons....

If by 'constructive' you mean CNM absolutely nailed it stone cold on the head, then I would say yes.

[Trayderjoe]

Originally Posted by Polar Bear

If by 'constructive' you mean CNM absolutely nailed it stone cold on the head, then I would say yes.

Please provide a link versus a reference CNM. Are you talking Central New Mexico University or CNN (more likely)? Which video or article?

Also, were you planning to answer the questions I had for you in response to your earlier post?

[My Post]

There was a terrible situation the other day in Brooklyn. Tony award winner and her best friend mowed down coming back from a Mom's prayer group at a church, in broad day light, each had a kid die. One 4YO one 1 YO. Both moms in the hospital. Ruthie Anne Miles, the actress, is pregnant.
AS long as there are cars, people are going to get hit. It stinks.

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by Trayderjoe

Today's Daily Sun printed a small article on page C-4 regarding the death of a 61 year old Homosassa woman, killed by a person who was speeding, driving under the influence, and driving with a suspended license.

Where is the uproar?

The 24 year old was clocked driving 92 mph on Interstate 75. A Florida Highway Patrol officer gave chase. The driver, a 23 year old Plant City man, exited abruptly at SR 44. He failed to stop at a red light at the end of the exit ramp and smashed into the woman's car, where she died at the scene.

Where is the uproar?

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, "Every day, almost 29 people in the United States die in alcohol-impaired vehicle crashes—that's one person every 50 minutes in 2016"

Where is the uproar?

On an almost daily basis, there are news reports in the Daily Sun or on line at that other news website that can't be mentioned, of arrests for DUI, driving on suspended licenses, etc. This includes driving golf carts here in The Villages.

Where is the uproar?

A driver's license is not a RIGHT it is a PRIVILEGE. Consuming alcohol is not a RIGHT, it is a CHOICE.

Where is the uproar?

How can people under the influence, or on suspended licenses, or even those without licenses, continue to be able to drive a vehicle? Why is there no national call to require car manufacturers to implement safety controls that prohibit any one that is not properly trained (no, mom and dad teaching their kids to drive doesn't count as driving instructors-the training should be done by licensed certified trainers) and carrying a valid license? Off the top suggestions are fingerprint readers tied into a national police database that can validate that the user is legally licensed to drive the car and of course, breathalyzers that must be used by EVERYONE when they put a key in the ignition and if they fail, it locks out the car and potentially even alert local law enforcement. Why do some states allow 16 year old children to drive? Perhaps the minimum driving age should be raised to 21, or 25. Why do we allow children to own and drive what is in essence a weapon if it is not handled safely and responsibly?

Where is the uproar?

Why do distilleries and other vendors of alcohol continue to get a pass? Why was there an article in yesterdays Daily Sun about a 17 year old detained by the police for having and consuming a beer? Why is there not a requirement that all alcohol in the home be kept locked up in a safe where children and abusers can't get to it? Why is there not a fingerprint check requirement tied to a national police database so that liquor stores can determine if the purchaser has been convicted of any alcohol related crimes?

Where is the uproar?

Where are the news pundits, the screen actors guild, the legislators, THE PEOPLE, who should be out protesting the daily death toll? Driving and alcohol consumption are privileges and choices, why aren't they being regulated?

Oh, that's right. These tragedies are "one offs". Twenty nine deaths on a daily basis are across the country. I guess this doesn't provide enough sensationalism for many of the above to sustain a protest. I wonder, do they think that the grief felt by the loved ones left behind by these "one offs" is any less traumatic?

Where is the uproar?

Let's wait let the justice system tries him, convict him, sentence him, and then if he don't get the death penalty or minimum life with no possibility for parole then we can now go after the liberal lenient judges. I bet he will get less than two years? i am outraged ever time I see the multiple felons get weak sentences after time after time then turned loose to maim and kill again.

Another thing, uproar should be with the justice system for not doing the job the first couple time around.

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by ColdNoMore

The "problem" and "facts"...are indisputably evident.

Just as the rabid opposition to ANY legislation regarding firearms...is well-defined.

The proof of that, is the fact that legislation against the sales of bump stocks...has so far been successfully forgotten/buried.

Next?

Single action 6 shooter can shoot faster than any semiautomatic and some automatic rifles or pistols due to the short action. But, it takes skill. I don't have problem with m16, ak47, SKS knockoffs off. What I do have problem is the 20, 30' 50, and 100 round magazines.

IMO no civilian should be able to get high powered rifle with clip that will hold more than 5 rounds. IMO only home owners should be allowed to to buy self defense weapon. That would be any semi automatic high powered rifle knockoffs of military style weapons.

Even though the ARs don't have the lever to flip to fully automatic the still hold too many round clips which IMO stretch to be considered hunting rifle. Beside most state I hunted in limited the number of round in weapon (as I recall shotgun 3, high powered rifle 5) But that's my opinion. Also IMO no one under 21 should be able to buy high powered semi automatic weapon that holds numerous rounds.

But even with that you can't stop lunatic hell bent on doing something respulsive in free society with lenient laws and decades to get to final verdict.

[Polar Bear]

Originally Posted by Trayderjoe

Please provide a link versus a reference CNM. Are you talking Central New Mexico University or CNN (more likely)? Which video or article?

Also, were you planning to answer the questions I had for you in response to your earlier post?

CNM=ColdNoMore,the person you quoted.

And...no.

[graciegirl]

You know instead of all this rhetoric, maybe we should try gun control in a large urban area like Chicago, and see how it goes...........