Politics Paul Allen gives $500K to Washington gun initiative

[bodyman5000 and 1]

Those are some crazy fact senarios:

Why would you give your gun to your friend?

I say protect your friend . . . unless he is a sex offender, then shoot him yourself.



What if I'm out in the woods with a friend and we are hunting but he didn't bring a gun and a bear cub charges him and I'm too busy taking a dump so I throw him my gun while the bear is nibbling his toe and he shots at the bear and shoots himself in the foot. Do I get in trouble?

Exactly. The morons in government think they are so smart that they have every scenario covered. They aren't.

They try to word everything just right to cover every scenario. They say you can transfer your gun to someone to defend themselves but only as long as necessary. Who the fuck decides how long that is?

The whole thing reeks of a bunch of liberals trying to avoid the constitution, you know. ..that silly thing that got us where we are today.

 

[barfo]

The FBI isn't counting firearm related deaths. They're counting homicides. That's the whole point, right?

You didn't say there were 42 homicides with firearms, you said 42 people died from firearms.

I don't know, is that the whole point? I don't think it should be - maybe there is a reason to try to save those other 395 people from dying too, not just the murder victims.

We're not talking about suicides or accidents. The whole point of this kind of legislation is to prevent people from killing others?

Don't know about that. Might be to try to prevent suicidal people from getting their hands on guns too. Might be to try to prevent people that are incompetent from getting guns. Might even be to keep people from wounding other people with guns, or threatening or robbing other people with guns. Not sure murder is really the whole story here.

barfo

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Exactly. The morons in government think they are so smart that they have every scenario covered. They aren't.

They try to word everything just right to cover every scenario. They say you can transfer your gun to someone to defend themselves but only as long as necessary. Who the fuck decides how long that is?

The whole thing reeks of a bunch of liberals trying to avoid the constitution, you know. ..that silly thing that got us where we are today.

I can't think of a law out there that covers every scenario, as hard as they try. . . they should just give up and get rid of laws.

 

[Natebishop3]

Call me an insensitive bastard, but why do we value one life more than another? Why do we care more about someone killed by a gun, rather than someone killed by a knife, a car, or being thrown from a cliff? We're talking about 42 people in 2012. That's not even a hundredth of a percent of the population of this state. It's sad when someone dies, but people die all the time. Every day. Every minute. Every second. People die. People are killed. We accept one death as being part of life, but another death is somehow more tragic or more worthy of our time and attention? Why? What is it about guns that make their use so much more egregious than a knife, or a rock, or your bare hands? I'm genuinely curious. Generally speaking, someone who is shot dies a more humane death than someone who is gutted by a knife or beaten to death with a blunt object. If someone was planning on killing me, I would rather they shoot me in the head, rather than stab me 20 times.

 

[barfo]

Exactly. The morons in government think they are so smart that they have every scenario covered. They aren't.

That's exactly right. No law is perfect, therefore we should not have laws.

They try to word everything just right to cover every scenario.

Well, fuck them for trying to get it right! What assholes!

The whole thing reeks of a bunch of liberals trying to avoid the constitution, you know. ..that silly thing that got us where we are today.

Is the constitution perfect? If not we should get rid of it too.

barfo

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

I can't think of a law out there that covers every scenario, as hard as they try. . . they should just give up and get rid of laws.

I can't think of a law that tries to negate the constitution without repealing it. Let's pretend the constitution said I could drive 150 mph wherever I wanted because they had no idea back then that cars could ever go that fast. Would it be better to...

A. Change the constitution to reflect modern technology or
B. Pass some bogus law that says you can only drive 150 when there are fewer than ten cars on the road at night while school is in session every othet Tuesday and Primus is in concert at La Luna.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Call me an insensitive bastard, but why do we value one life more than another? Why do we care more about someone killed by a gun, rather than someone killed by a knife, a car, or being thrown from a cliff? We're talking about 42 people in 2012. That's not even a hundredth of a percent of the population of this state. It's sad when someone dies, but people die all the time. Every day. Every minute. Every second. People die. People are killed. We accept one death as being part of life, but another death is somehow more tragic or more worthy of our time and attention? Why? What is it about guns that make their use so much more egregious than a knife, or a rock, or your bare hands? I'm genuinely curious. Generally speaking, someone who is shot dies a more humane death than someone who is gutted by a knife or beaten to death with a blunt object. If someone was planning on killing me, I would rather they shoot me in the head, rather than stab me 20 times.

When I look around the US and at mass murder situations, I often see guns involved. I don't want to wait until someone goes into one of our kindergartens and shoots kids before Oregon acts. Would rather try to stop it before it happens. Proactive rather than reactive.

Oregon got lucky with the attempted mass murder at the mall. If there is an idea that may reduce the chances of someone going into a school and shooting kids, they got my attention.

 

[barfo]

Call me an insensitive bastard

You are an insensitive bastard.

, but why do we value one life more than another? Why do we care more about someone killed by a gun, rather than someone killed by a knife, a car, or being thrown from a cliff?

Who says we do? We spend lots and lots of money on fences and guardrails near cliffs. We spend lots of money (and make lots of laws) trying to improve auto safety. It's hard to see what to do about knives, but if you have any suggestions...

barfo

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

That's exactly right. No law is perfect, therefore we should not have laws.



Well, fuck them for trying to get it right! What assholes!



Is the constitution perfect? If not we should get rid of it too.

barfo

Without the constitution what is to stop me from killing you with my bare hands? I could certainly do it if I felt like it.

They aren't trying to get anything "right"

They are trying to work around something that they don't have the ability to change.

There are people selling tools that drop by the shop I work at. One has sold huge serrated edge machetes with his tool brand name on them to two of my co workers.

Either guy could kill 10 people in minutes with one. What law will stop them?

 

[Natebishop3]

You didn't say there were 42 homicides with firearms, you said 42 people died from firearms.

I don't know, is that the whole point? I don't think it should be - maybe there is a reason to try to save those other 395 people from dying too, not just the murder victims.



Don't know about that. Might be to try to prevent suicidal people from getting their hands on guns too. Might be to try to prevent people that are incompetent from getting guns. Might even be to keep people from wounding other people with guns, or threatening or robbing other people with guns. Not sure murder is really the whole story here.

barfo

Sorry, I phrased my point wrong. I was talking about homicides, because in my opinion, someone who is set on killing themselves is going to find a way. That mother from Dundee used sleeping pills.

But seriously, what is this going to do? Or is the point of this just to make people feel better about themselves? As I said, many of the notable shootings involved stolen guns from people who legally purchased them. So how is this going to stop someone from acquiring a gun to hurt themselves or someone else? I can walk into any gun shop in Oregon and buy a handgun, same day. Why would background checks slow me down?

 

[MARIS61]

I agree that changing the 2nd amendment would be extremely difficult, so those in favor of gun control should try to do it through measures like this.

Great idea. But why stop there? Let's write separate unconstitutional laws to blur or reverse the intent of every Amendment. Let us shut people up, take away women's vote, make blacks slaves, restrict the physical movements of citizens, open all homes and property to search and seizure, bring back lynchings and witch burnings...

You're one of those "progressives" aren't you?

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

You are an insensitive bastard.



Who says we do? We spend lots and lots of money on fences and guardrails near cliffs. We spend lots of money (and make lots of laws) trying to improve auto safety. It's hard to see what to do about knives, but if you have any suggestions...

barfo

I have a suggestion, it was the Moops. Not the Moors.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

You are an insensitive bastard.



Who says we do? We spend lots and lots of money on fences and guardrails near cliffs. We spend lots of money (and make lots of laws) trying to improve auto safety. It's hard to see what to do about knives, but if you have any suggestions...

barfo

Did you see where that girl in Utah was killed sunbathing in her driveway? We should pass a law that driveways should be made out of Tempurpedic mattresses so that never happens again.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

Great idea. But why stop there? Let's write separate unconstitutional laws to blur or reverse the intent of every Amendment. Let us shut people up, take away women's vote, make blacks slaves, restrict the physical movements of citizens, open all homes and property to search and seizure, bring back lynchings and witch burnings...

You're one of those "progressives" aren't you?

Yes we are so close to that point. I just feel like I can't do anything in this country and am constantly being oppressed by the government.

I don't know if I'm a progressive . . . I know I'm not a fictional message board character.

 

[MARIS61]

When I look around the US and at mass murder situations, I often see guns involved. I don't want to wait until someone goes into one of our kindergartens and shoots kids before Oregon acts. Would rather try to stop it before it happens. Proactive rather than reactive.

Oregon got lucky with the attempted mass murder at the mall. If there is an idea that may reduce the chances of someone going into a school and shooting kids, they got my attention.

School and mall murders are the direct RESULT of gun control.

They never occurred until schools and malls were designated "gun-free zones, along with government buildings. The reason government buildings don't have murders is because many of the employees are armed and all government buildings have armed guards. Only the public it serves are denied the right to carry. Schools and malls have no armed guards. This is on purpose. The feds want mass shootings to scare citizens into agreeing to more gun control and eventual nationwide confiscation of all guns held by Real Americans.

 

[barfo]

Without the constitution what is to stop me from killing you with my bare hands? I could certainly do it if I felt like it.

The fact that you are a sweet guy and you'd never imagine doing such a thing.

They aren't trying to get anything "right"

You said they were.

They are trying to work around something that they don't have the ability to change.

That's called 'living in the real world'.

barfo

 

[Natebishop3]

When I look around the US and at mass murder situations, I often see guns involved. I don't want to wait until someone goes into one of our kindergartens and shoots kids before Oregon acts. Would rather try to stop it before it happens. Proactive rather than reactive.

Oregon got lucky with the attempted mass murder at the mall. If there is an idea that may reduce the chances of someone going into a school and shooting kids, they got my attention.

How many mass murders are there? What do you define as a mass murder?

How is this proactive? The mass murders you mentioned, or attempted mass murders, were with stolen weapons. That, right there, pokes a huge hole in this legislation. The guns were acquired illegally. So why would background checks help? If we've learned anything, it's that criminals have a complete disregard for the law. If someone is planning on breaking the law, they're not going to give a shit about background checks. They're going to acquire the guns, legally or illegally. The laws in place did their jobs, and they still failed. The kid who did the Newtown shooting was denied. He tried to buy guns and was turned away, so he stole them.

Take the money that's spent every year on anti-gun legislation, propaganda, and lobbying, and then put that towards security measures. Put armed security in the schools. Have we not learned the way of the world? People prey on the weak. That's the way things work. Someone will target a place that is unarmed, rather than try their luck going after a place that is. Stop giving these assholes the publicity they want. Stop making them household names.

That asshole down in California got his message out, but all anyone talked about was the shooting. He started his rampage by stabbing three people to death. Nobody cared about that though. They care about the people he shot because that's the hot topic.

 

[barfo]

Why would background checks slow me down?

They shouldn't, if your background is clean. If your background isn't clean then they should prevent you from buying a gun. That's the point of background checks, isn't it?

barfo

 

[MARIS61]

Yes we are so close to that point. I just feel like I can't do anything in this country and am constantly being oppressed by the government.

I don't know if I'm a progressive . . . I know I'm not a fictional message board character.

Actually, we passed that point years ago. You're just not very observant.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

School and mall murders are the direct RESULT of gun control.

They never occurred until schools and malls were designated "gun-free zones, along with government buildings. The reason government buildings don't have murders is because many of the employees are armed and all government buildings have armed guards. Only the public it serves are denied the right to carry. Schools and malls have no armed guards. This is on purpose. The feds want mass shootings to scare citizens into agreeing to more gun control and eventual nationwide confiscation of all guns held by Real Americans.

A long term gov't conspiracy. The feds want innocent Americans killed by the dozens so they can take away guns from real Americans. Interesting theory, it may take couple of centuries but none the less I would expect nothing less from from "MARIS61"

Hopefully someone can clue in real Americans before it's too late . . . or is it already too late?

 

[barfo]

School and mall murders are the direct RESULT of gun control.

They never occurred until schools and malls were designated "gun-free zones, along with government buildings. The reason government buildings don't have murders is because many of the employees are armed and all government buildings have armed guards. Only the public it serves are denied the right to carry. Schools and malls have no armed guards. This is on purpose. The feds want mass shootings to scare citizens into agreeing to more gun control and eventual nationwide confiscation of all guns held by Real Americans.

How do you explain the shootings at military bases then? Surely there were some armed people there?

barfo

 

[Natebishop3]

They shouldn't, if your background is clean. If your background isn't clean then they should prevent you from buying a gun. That's the point of background checks, isn't it?

barfo

How many of the people who shot themselves or others had clean backgrounds? I just don't think you're getting the point. You aren't addressing the right symptom. If it's a gun that was legally purchased, your background checks did nothing, and if it's a gun that was illegally acquired, your background checks were ineffective.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Natebishop3]

How do you explain the shootings at military bases then? Surely there were some armed people there?

barfo

The answer is simply that if someone is willing to die, almost no amount of security will stop them before they kill. The hope is that security will make someone think twice, but in reality they will probably just pick a softer target.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[The_Lillard_King]

How many mass murders are there? What do you define as a mass murder?

How is this proactive? The mass murders you mentioned, or attempted mass murders, were with stolen weapons. That, right there, pokes a huge hole in this legislation. The guns were acquired illegally. So why would background checks help? If we've learned anything, it's that criminals have a complete disregard for the law. If someone is planning on breaking the law, they're not going to give a shit about background checks. They're going to acquire the guns, legally or illegally. The laws in place did their jobs, and they still failed. The kid who did the Newtown shooting was denied. He tried to buy guns and was turned away, so he stole them.

Take the money that's spent every year on anti-gun legislation, propaganda, and lobbying, and then put that towards security measures. Put armed security in the schools. Have we not learned the way of the world? People prey on the weak. That's the way things work. Someone will target a place that is unarmed, rather than try their luck going after a place that is. Stop giving these assholes the publicity they want. Stop making them household names.

That asshole down in California got his message out, but all anyone talked about was the shooting. He started his rampage by stabbing three people to death. Nobody cared about that though. They care about the people he shot because that's the hot topic.

How do you know the legislation hasn't worked. Perhaps it has stopped someone from buying a gun and going on a shooting spree. I don't think any legislation is going to completely stop it, but I do think trying to control guns in our society is a good thing.

I get you are skeptical and really don't like the idea of legislation that control guns. I can't disagree more. I personally don't feel the limitations that others here feel about owning guns. What country can I go to that I get more access to guns than here in the US? Searching on line and just reading the threads here, I just don't feel like I'm being inhibited when it comes to owning guns.

So I don't have any problem with the Washington measure that Allen and others are supporting. But I do believe in our system and leaving it to the people to vote on it. If the measure fails and people in Washington believe it is too restrictive or if it gets shot down by some who challenges it on a constitutional level, I can live with that without bitching.

 

[barfo]

How many of the people who shot themselves or others had clean backgrounds?

I don't have the statistics, but probably a lot, but not all.

I just don't think you're getting the point. You aren't addressing the right symptom. If it's a gun that was legally purchased, your background checks did nothing

What about guns that background checks prevented from being purchased?

, and if it's a gun that was illegally acquired, your background checks were ineffective.

Granted. Background checks do not solve every problem. They may not even solve very many problems. But they might prevent someone, somewhere, from getting shot. Why are you against that?

barfo

 

[MARIS61]

How many mass murders are there? What do you define as a mass murder?

Excellent question.

Even if you call any murder of 4 or more people at one time a mass murder, it's by far the rarest murder category, accounting for the fewest total deaths.

Let's forget about the extremely rare occurrence of mass murder and go after a group where we can really make a difference in the death count. That's the supposed goal here (wink wink).

Murder by spouse is big, as is murder for profit. *edited* Cops murder more innocent citizens every year than all the mass murders in our country's history added together. Disarm the cops?

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Cops murder more innocent citizens every year than all the mass murders in our country's history added together.

Link?

 

[Minstrel]

Really? The Clackamas town shooting was with a stolen rifle.

Newtown? Stolen weapons.

Reynolds? Stolen.

Most gang shootings are with stolen or unregistered weapons, so unless we're talking about a domestic killing where a wife or husband shoots their spouse, I'm not sure what you're talking about when you mentioned people who go out and shoot public places or get into shoot-outs with the cops.

What about Columbine, the UC Santa Barbara killings and others? That's why asked for stats. Reeling off three events isn't all that compelling when there are tons of shootings in this country. I never suggested that every shooting is done with legally acquired guns. My point was that when you go out and shoot up a major area (especially when you shoot yourself at the end), evading detection isn't a big issue. Whether your gun is legal or illegal is only useful (as far as I know--let me know if there's some other reason) in avoiding being tracked down.

 

[Natebishop3]

What about Columbine, the UC Santa Barbara killings and others? That's why asked for stats. Reeling off three events isn't all that compelling when there are tons of shootings in this country. I never suggested that every shooting is done with legally acquired guns. My point was that when you go out and shoot up a major area (especially when you shoot yourself at the end), evading detection isn't a big issue. Whether your gun is legal or illegal is only useful (as far as I know--let me know if there's some other reason) in avoiding being tracked down.

My point is that these measures aren't actually doing anything. You bring up columbine, but those students were under 18 so the guns were illegally acquired. Uc Santa Barbara started with the murder of three people by stabbing and then he went out and shot 3 people. Nobody wants to talk about the three people he stabbed though.

When we are talking about adding more background checks, it is relevant to discuss specifically how background checks are ineffective in preventing the very issues that seem to drive the anti-gun movement.

For me it's frustrating because I feel like its ineffective towards actually making a difference and only punishes the people who actually follow the laws.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Minstrel]

You bring up columbine, but those students were under 18 so the guns were illegally acquired.

I'm not sure that's a crucial point, though. They were legally acquired by their parents or wherever they got them (I assume). The point is that legally acquired firearms being so prevalent make these things more likely. I'm not, here, advocating that their parents shouldn't have been able to buy the guns, but I don't really buy the argument that the only guns that murder people are unregistered, black market pieces so any and all regulations are doomed to fail in reducing gun violence (which may or may not be what you are arguing, but is commonly argued).

When we are talking about adding more background checks, it is relevant to discuss specifically how background checks are ineffective in preventing the very issues that seem to drive the anti-gun movement.

What do you feel the downsides of background checks are? They may not prevent most of the shootings, but the thing is, more sweeping regulations are currently impossible due to the hold that the NRA has on a lot of congresspeople. This is a problem you can only chip away at. I agree with you, actually, that background checks, themselves, aren't going to change things much. But a "fix it all or do nothing" approach always means nothing (which is fine, of course, for the people who want nothing done, but obviously not fine for people who want to make a change). You start with low impact and achievable things and move on from there. That's how it always (has to) work, by and large.