Rhode Island Representative calls for "special tax" on video games....

[Jito463]

3 minutes ago, mr moose said:

The issue is the US seems to revere gun ownership more than conceding the desire to own a gun for the sake off saving lives.

For reasons that you will likely never understand, so I'm not going to waste my time explaining it to you.

13 minutes ago, mr moose said:

If he didn't have access to a gun they would also still be a live.

Really?  What if he stole a gun?  What if drove a truck into a crowd of kids?  What if he built a bomb?  Your argument is just as illogical as those who claim video games are what caused him to kill.

14 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I hear this response to gun death's all the time. Maybe you should pay more attention before resenting realities

You were addressing me while making that claim.  If you have an issues with Memories post, then I suggest you respond to them while saying something like that.  Maybe you shouldn't paint everyone with a broad brush because of one person (which is a perfect allegory for the whole gun control debate).

[Daegun]

45 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

The bulk of the criminal deaths are due to gang violence (in just a handful of cities, no less).  It's a gang problem, not a gun problem.

Which I addressed in the next line that you conveniently ignored.

If he had been treated as a criminal, instead of coddled, those 17 people would still be alive.

No one is laughing, and I resent the insinuation.

I'd like to know where you got those numbers, because the last numbers I saw was less than that including suicides.

 

We may need to take this to PM though, as it's going off-topic (and the mods may decide to start purging the thread).

Sorry, working with a bit outdated of data here, but gang related murders compared to overall murders are actually relatively low. From 1996-2012 they averaged about 13% of overall murders in the US. So unless there was an unprecedented increase in just the last 5 years, they're still relatively low.

https://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/survey-analysis/measuring-the-extent-of-gang-problems

 

For the gun deaths in the US I used this site: http://www.gunviolencearchive.org

They include an address, source, and incident report for each entry. The discrepancy in the number might come from accidental shootings, most sources I viewed put gun related murders at around 11,000-12,000.

 

I would be fine with continuing the conversation in pm, I derailed the thread a bit by turning it only to guns.

[Memories4K]

15 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I hear this response to gun death's all the time. Maybe you should pay more attention before resenting realities.

 

 

The issue is the US seems to revere gun ownership more than conceding the desire to own a gun for the sake off saving lives.

"Hey guys!
Let's ban all recreational use of drugs, prescription drugs, and alcohol so we can finally DO SOMETHING about these drug overdoses, cases of drug addiction and alcohol-related deaths in cases of drunk driving. If you don't support my ban on dangerous things for a safer world then the blood of these people is on your hands!"

So insincere lol

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

The issue is the US seems to revere gun ownership more than conceding the desire to own a gun for the sake off saving lives.

Nah just do the Chris Rock theory, have all the guns you like but make bullets cost $5000.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, Jito463 said:

For reasons that you will likely never understand, so I'm not going to waste my time explaining it to you.

Nothing wrong with gun ownership rights but you shouldn't be able to own certain types of guns. What I'll never understand is the people that cling on very hard to the whole well armed militia concept that makes zero sense now days, no matter how big your gun is it's not going to do anything to tanks, planes and drones but oh well.

[ravenshrike]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

It's not a gun problem it's a *insert whatever here* problem.  I've heard them all before,  the only common denominator is guns.  Either address the issues you call problems or address the easy access to guns. Take a pick but do something other than being defensive and allowing the deaths to continue.

If the only common denominator is guns, then you would have had exponentially more school shootings when guns were regularly taken to school grounds in the 60's and 70's in the US. Not to mention the flat out impossibility of getting rid of 400-600 million guns that are currently in the US(The 300 million number that gets thrown around is a lowball estimate) even assuming the 2nd amendment vanished tomorrow. Then there's the fact that people think EBRs are significantly different from any other semi-auto rifles which is just laughable.

[ravenshrike]

2 hours ago, Daegun said:

3 hours ago, Jito463 said:

 

Sorry, working with a bit outdated of data here, but gang related murders compared to overall murders are actually relatively low. From 1996-2012 they averaged about 13% of overall murders in the US. So unless there was an unprecedented increase in just the last 5 years, they're still relatively low.

https://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/survey-analysis/measuring-the-extent-of-gang-problems

Those are murders that they can prove are gang connected. Not murders of gang members by other gang members. A rather large difference.

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, Jito463 said:

For reasons that you will likely never understand, so I'm not going to waste my time explaining it to you.

So insinuation of understanding aside we agree?

 

2 hours ago, Jito463 said:

Really?  What if he stole a gun?  What if drove a truck into a crowd of kids?  What if he built a bomb?  Your argument is just as illogical as those who claim video games are what caused him to kill.

Lot of what if's,  you can't steal a gun if there isn't one to steal.

 

2 hours ago, Jito463 said:

You were addressing me while making that claim.  If you have an issues with Memories post, then I suggest you respond to them while saying something like that.  Maybe you shouldn't paint everyone with a broad brush because of one person (which is a perfect allegory for the whole gun control debate).

I was addressing the argument not you,  I have had discussion with you before and I ma convinced you are a decent enough person with good intentions.  But unfortunately  good intentions don't solve some issues.

 

 

2 hours ago, Memories4K said:

"Hey guys!
Let's ban all recreational use of drugs, prescription drugs, and alcohol so we can finally DO SOMETHING about these drug overdoses, cases of drug addiction and alcohol-related deaths in cases of drunk driving. If you don't support my ban on dangerous things for a safer world then the blood of these people is on your hands!"

So insincere lol

 

Yep, can't remember the last time someone took  drugs into a school and made 17 innocent people overdose.  

 

30 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Nothing wrong with gun ownership rights but you shouldn't be able to own certain types of guns. What I'll never understand is the people that cling on very hard to the whole well armed militia concept that makes zero sense now days, no matter how big your gun is it's not going to do anything to tanks, planes and drones but oh well.

In this day and age a lot of arguments for gun ownership are just wrong.  People should just say I want them, rather than cling to tired arguments of dictatorship or self defense.

 

6 minutes ago, ravenshrike said:

If the only common denominator is guns, then you would have had exponentially more school shootings when guns were regularly taken to school grounds in the 60's and 70's in the US.

How does that change anything I've said?

 

6 minutes ago, ravenshrike said:

 

Not to mention the flat out impossibility of getting rid of 400-600 million guns that are currently in the US(The 300 million number that gets thrown around is a lowball

estimate) even assuming the 2nd amendment vanished tomorrow.

It's actually very easy, grandfather clause with buy back after death of the owner and ban only certain typoes of weapons (like in Australia) and augment with better social policy.  The fact is you have a problem and the solution is goingt o cost regardless.  Simply ignoring the problem or the numbers is not going to change anything.  

 

 

6 minutes ago, ravenshrike said:

Then there's the fact that people think EBRs are significantly different from any other semi-auto rifles which is just laughable.

I only operate on numbers not personal interpretation of what should be illegal and what shouldn't.    The numbers say there is a problem, either deal with it or don;t deal with it, but pretending it isn't a problem is not the answer.

 

[Donut417]

40 minutes ago, leadeater said:

What I'll never understand is the people that cling on very hard to the whole well armed militia concept that makes zero sense now days

Because the second amendment exists. Also, because political organizations have money to influence people in to why they need these weapons. While those same organizations threaten politicians if they dont support ownership. Basically its about scaring people that the BIG BAD GOVERNMENT is going to take their rights away. Hell in many ways they already have. Another part of this is greed. Gun companies want to make money, so they want to make sure every one can buy weapons and ammo. Because every time a shooting like this happen there is a spike in gun sales, so they make out like bandits. Purely greed. Nothing will change because none of those worthless fucks in the house or senate have the balls to tell the these people no more. 

[mr moose]

26 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

Because the second amendment exists. Also, because political organizations have money to influence people in to why they need these weapons. While those same organizations threaten politicians if they dont support ownership. Basically its about scaring people that the BIG BAD GOVERNMENT is going to take their rights away. Hell in many ways they already have. Another part of this is greed. Gun companies want to make money, so they want to make sure every one can buy weapons and ammo. Because every time a shooting like this happen there is a spike in gun sales, so they make out like bandits. Purely greed. Nothing will change because none of those worthless fucks in the house or senate have the balls to tell the these people no more. 

And around it goes,  some people die, some make money while others put their heads in the sand.  It is sad no one has the balls to question their own ideals let alone face the fact that people are dying unnecessarily.   

 

As I said before, it's too late to take guns away from people who already have them, but it's not too late to change the way society understands the issue and actually does something about it.

[Daegun]

50 minutes ago, ravenshrike said:

Those are murders that they can prove are gang connected. Not murders of gang members by other gang members. A rather large difference.

Gang related murders in this case are any murders where either the victim or the perpetrator are gang members, so that would certainly be recorded as a gang related murder. Number 5 on this list explains how they record it.

 

https://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/About/FAQ#q5

[Sephiroth]

Not sure it's going to be allowed to pass; Massachusetts is facing problems trying to impose an additional tax on incomes over $1,000,000.00 to be used for education and transportation, but that's facing opposition because it's not exactly legal to pre-allocate funds of specific taxes for a specific purpose (e.g. you also couldn't do a 10% tax on sugar and say revenue from the tax would be used to fund public health). Of course, it also could simply be that those affected by the proposed Mass law definitely have the access to and ability to hire the best lawyers to fight said tax, and this might not face such opposition in Rhode Island. Just an interesting thing to note.

[Jito463]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

In this day and age a lot of arguments for gun ownership are just wrong.  People should just say I want them, rather than cling to tired arguments of dictatorship or self defense

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

What I'll never understand is the people that cling on very hard to the whole well armed militia concept that makes zero sense now days

Really?  Cause I'm pretty sure that people in Venezuela would disagree with you.  In fact, one former Venezuelan does.

 

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/latino/jorge-bonilla/2018/02/24/telemundo-whole-seven-seconds-worth-balance

Quote

Tips & Tactics host and NRA News Commentator Gabby Franco is an NRA certified firearms instructor and former contestant on the History Channel's Top Shot. At the age of 19, the Venezuelan native was the first female to qualify for the Venezuelan Olympic Shooting Team, representing her country at the 2000 Sydney Olympics. In 2002, Gabby moved to the U.S. and she is passionate about her Second Amendment freedoms — having seen firsthand what happens in a country where the government strips its citizens of their rights.

That's not some reference from 50+ years ago, that's in the here-and-now.  I can say with a fair degree of certainty, that Franco would vehemently disagree with you both.

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

I have had discussion with you before and I ma convinced you are a decent enough person with good intentions.  But unfortunately  good intentions don't solve some issues.

You're assuming that those of us on the pro-gun/pro-2nd Amendment side don't have any ideas for making schools safer.  There are numerous ideas from conservatives, Republicans (which isn't always the same thing) and the NRA.  Without trying to make this political, the left in this country just doesn't want to hear them because they're so fixated on the "ban guns" argument.  That's not me trying to make this a left-right issue, it just is.

 

I believe you're sincere in your convictions, but you honestly seem like you're behaving the same.  So fixated on this concept that guns should be banned, you aren't willing to recognize there are other viable options available.

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

Lot of what if's,  you can't steal a gun if there isn't one to steal.

And your proposal to rid the entire world of guns would be?  That's literally the only way you'd be able to make it happen.

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

Simply ignoring the problem or the numbers is not going to change anything.

We have numerous systems in place to ensure whack-jobs like this psycho can't get their hands (legally) on a weapon.  As I've demonstrated previously - and you ignored, claiming you've "heard it all before" - the systems broke down because of failed leadership in the country.  Leadership in the school, leadership in law enforcement and leadership in the local government.  They all failed to do their jobs and 17 people paid the price for the ineptness.  There's plenty of us who aren't "ignoring the problem", the issue is when the leadership fails to act properly.

4 hours ago, Daegun said:

For the gun deaths in the US I used this site: http://www.gunviolencearchive.org

According to that site (assuming it's accurate), the numbers for 2017 were just under 16,000.  They claim it excludes suicides, but their own reports belie that.  One such listing had it as:

Quote

Shot - Dead (murder, accidental, suicide)

died 1/1 of inj

So, they listed it as a murder, an accident and a suicide?  I find that a little suspicious, when they allegedly didn't include suicides.  That makes me question the numbers they provide.

 

As Samuel Clemens once said so eloquently, there are lies, d****** lies and statistics.  The thing about statistics, is they can be twisted and contorted to mean pretty much whatever you want them to.

[leadeater]

41 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

That's not some reference from 50+ years ago, that's in the here-and-now.  I can say with a fair degree of certainty, that Franco would vehemently disagree with you both.

That's nice but I'm not saying removing gun ownership rights and can you explain to me how a firearm, I'll open this to any firearm, is going to help you against the US military?

 

A well armed militia might have a decent chance against the NZ military but the US military, no chance. Even insurgents in the middle east with RPGs and backing of other foreign nations have little to no effect against the US military who are not trying to actually destroy the country or the citizens (even though its happening).

 

That's the last I'll comment on it because that's already too far in to politics but as I said I'll never understand the mentality of people today that back the idea of a well arm militia to keep the US government in check, you have a better chance of breathing in space.

[mr moose]

24 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

Really?  Cause I'm pretty sure that people in Venezuela would disagree with you.  In fact, one former Venezuelan does.

 

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/latino/jorge-bonilla/2018/02/24/telemundo-whole-seven-seconds-worth-balance

That's not some reference from 50+ years ago, that's in the here-and-now.  I can say with a fair degree of certainty, that Franco would vehemently disagree with you both.

One discussion of an entire nations woes from an NRA firearm instructor is does not make changes to gun law an instant dictatorial oppression of the people.

 

24 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

You're assuming that those of us on the pro-gun/pro-2nd Amendment side don't have any ideas for making schools safer.  There are numerous ideas from conservatives, Republicans (which isn't always the same thing) and the NRA.  Without trying to make this political, the left in this country just doesn't want to hear them because they're so fixated on the "ban guns" argument.  That's not me trying to make this a left-right issue, it just is.

I am merely pointing out that there is a lot of talk and lot of dismissing of facts.  To me it is not a left/right thing, it is not political at all to me, it is purely a cultural thing that is so ingrained that the solution is not being accepted by anyone.

 

24 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

I believe you're sincere in your convictions, but you honestly seem like you're behaving the same.  So fixated on this concept that guns should be banned, you aren't willing to recognize there are other viable options available.

The point I am fixated on is the fact that no one is will to concede even a little bit in order to start addressing the issue.  People are dying and so far there is just debate. 

24 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

And your proposal to rid the entire world of guns would be?  That's literally the only way you'd be able to make it happen.

We have numerous systems in place to ensure whack-jobs like this psycho can't get their hands (legally) on a weapon.

Yet he did get a weapon.  So your systems don't work, change something. fix something. DO something.

24 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

  As I've demonstrated previously - and you ignored, claiming you've "heard it all before" - the systems broke down because of failed leadership in the country.  Leadership in the school, leadership in law enforcement and leadership in the local government.  They all failed to do their jobs and 17 people paid the price for the ineptness.  There's plenty of us who aren't "ignoring the problem", the issue is when the leadership fails to act properly.

As above, if the authorities are inept and that is the problem then hold them to account, if you can't do that then you have bigger problems.   To me the issue is out of hand. And I simply reduce the issue to either fix the problem at the cause or make it harder to get the guns.  Because neither is happening.  They are still getting the guns, the authorities are not doing their job, the mental health service is lacking and at the end of the day what's the point of living in a free country if you have to live everyday in fear of your life because of that freedom?  Something needs to change. So far all I hear is the same old rhetoric: it's this persons fault because...   then nothing changes.

 

 

 

[Aeternalis]

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

\

If he didn't have access to a gun they would also still be a live. 

 

 

That wouldn't have ever happened. Black markets.

[Aeternalis]

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

One discussion of an entire nations woes from an NRA firearm instructor is does not make changes to gun law an instant dictatorial oppression of the people.

 

I am merely pointing out that there is a lot of talk and lot of dismissing of facts.  To me it is not a left/right thing, it is not political at all to me, it is purely a cultural thing that is so ingrained that the solution is not being accepted by anyone.

 

The point I am fixated on is the fact that no one is will to concede even a little bit in order to start addressing the issue.  People are dying and so far there is just debate. 

Yet he did get a weapon.  So your systems don't work, change something. fix something. DO something.

As above, if the authorities are inept and that is the problem then hold them to account, if you can't do that then you have bigger problems.   To me the issue is out of hand. And I simply reduce the issue to either fix the problem at the cause or make it harder to get the guns.  Because neither is happening.  They are still getting the guns, the authorities are not doing their job, the mental health service is lacking and at the end of the day what's the point of living in a free country if you have to live everyday in fear of your life because of that freedom?  Something needs to change. So far all I hear is the same old rhetoric: it's this persons fault because...   then nothing changes.

 

 

 

What needs to change is the educational system. We can't deny it played a part in making him a piece of garbage.

[mr moose]

Just now, Aeternalis said:

That wouldn't have ever happened. Black markets.

claiming a basic logic is untrue because you can hypothesize a possible absolute why it may or may not happen is a fallacy.   If he didn't have access to a gun they would be alive is a fact in and of itself.  The debate becomes how to make that "IF" a possibility, rather than just dismissing it with an absolute statement of impossibility.

[Aeternalis]

Just now, mr moose said:

claiming a basic logic is untrue because you can hypothesize a possible absolute why it may or may not happen is a fallacy.   If he didn't have access to a gun they would be alive is a fact in and of itself.  The debate becomes how to make that "IF" a possibility, rather than just dismissing it with an absolute statement of impossibility.

IF doesn't help prevent deaths. Absolution does. The fact is that you can ban guns until the sun doesn't shine, if someone wants to get a gun and commit an atrocity they're going to do it. Or not even using a gun, the 9/11 hijackers had box cutters.

 

 

[Donut417]

6 hours ago, mr moose said:

f he didn't have access to a gun they would also still be a live.

I have to agree with @Aeternalis. Im fairly certain if I wanted a gun but couldn't buy one, I could go down the Detroit and buy one out of some guys trunk. The Mexican and Columbia Drug cartels get drugs and guns in to our country all the time. Any way you look at it, these weapons would be out there for purchase, by one means or another. 

 

11 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Even insurgents in the middle east with RPGs and backing of other foreign nations have little to no effect against the US military who are not trying to actually destroy the country or the citizens (even though its happening).

I mean the only cost has been the thousands of American lives lost. I wouldn't consider that to be little to no effect. Many of our service members come back after they are done, either in pieces and or mental broken for life. What many dont understand, we are not winning. These rebels will continue to kill our men and women until they have stolen our will to fight. To me that is part of the reason the British gave up the colonies. They lost the will to fight. 

[leadeater]

9 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

I mean the only cost has been the thousands of American lives lost. I wouldn't consider that to be little to no effect.

Effect on an individual is not the same as an effect on the military force itself.

[leadeater]

1 minute ago, valdyrgramr said:

If the bomb required a charge, and the chemistry class had LN2, they could potentially defuse it.

Pour LN2 on bomb or run like hell? I know which I'd pick lol

[Donut417]

Just now, leadeater said:

Effect on an individual is not the same as an effect on the military force itself.

It is when they cant willing volunteers. Remember we run a full voluntary force, I haven't seen recruitment numbers, but I would say they are pretty low. Most people join because they want to serve or they want to have college paid for. But the more wars we enter the less people want to join.  While it might not directly effected the military. It has effected the private citizen who has to pay to blow up one country after another, then pay to rebuild it. 

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, valdyrgramr said:

But, if you freeze it with LN2 there's no boom.   That's one of many things the bomb squad does.  However, they tend to use bots for that now.

I consider my bomb defusing skills as nil, I trust the science but I don't trust my ability to execute lol

[ARikozuM]

3 minutes ago, leadeater said:

I consider my bomb defusing skills as nil, I trust the science but I don't trust my ability to execute lol

[not execute]

 

http://www.keeptalkinggame.com

 

Time to practice*!!~~~

 

*Training may not be applicable in a life or death situation.