• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: American Politics

Habsy said:
Do you want more napkin math? It’s estimated one in 10 people suffer from mental illness. That would mean that there are 3.3 million people in the states with mental illness. Do you really think you’re going to prevent all of them from doing something like this? Not happening.
Click to expand...

Answers like this amaze me.

You're not trying to stop all of the incidents (I've covered this already). You're trying to stop as many as you can with the easiest solutions available. This is how rational problem solving works. Go after the low hanging fruit first and see what impact that has.

The other thing of course is that every time you eliminate the access to a firearm for said ill person you potentially eliminate one of these incidents. Every time you even delay putting one of these force multipliers in their hands, you give yourself an additional opportunity for friends and family of the ill person to get them the help they need or failing that, get law enforcement involved.

It all starts from making access to weaponry harder for the mentally ill (among other subsets) and it's not nearly as difficult in function as you seem to believe. It requires the political will to actually do what the people want done. 97% man...97 ****ing percent are in favour of background checks. Start there. Low hanging fruit.
 
MindzEye said:
There is no solution elsewhere. Rail against it all you want to, it isn't there. You guys aren't going to be willing to eat the costs and you know it. The kids will have their say, the right wing media will continue with their disgusting spin on the opinions of the kids who got shot at, and everyone will move on....again. Until the next time, and the next, and the next.
Click to expand...

I'm not the one railing, all of you are. You're all not grasping that the second amendment isn't changing, no matter how much you whine or very about it. I prefer to tackle problems with realism not fantasy.
 
MindzEye said:
How about tax the entire class of firearms heavily? The 2nd gives the right to bare arms, but not the right for them to be cheap.
Click to expand...

Won't work, there's already over 300m guns out there and you would simply create a large black market. Taxation on gun class would only apply to new sales.
 
MindzEye said:
Answers like this amaze me.

You're not trying to stop all of the incidents (I've covered this already). You're trying to stop as many as you can with the easiest solutions available. This is how rational problem solving works. Go after the low hanging fruit first and see what impact that has.
Click to expand...

behavioural economics 101.

people cling to absolutes, like real life problems are a wrestling match between good and evil
 
Habsy said:
It’s cute that you people think banning AR15s will change anything. Just shows you know little about guns.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about banning AR-15's?

Make them harder to get, a ban isn't necessary. If the kid has an 8 shot clip in a hand gun instead of a 40 shot clip in a AR, does he kill 17 or "only" 2-3? I'd say that changes something.
 
Habsy said:
Won't work, there's already over 300m guns out there and you would simply create a large black market. Taxation on gun class would only apply to new sales.
Click to expand...

Offer tax credits for turning in weapons of that class and buy back everything you can get your hands on.

Probably a hell of a lot cheaper than 30-40 Billion on securing every public school in the country.
 
Habsy said:
I'm not the one railing, all of you are. You're all not grasping that the second amendment isn't changing, no matter how much you whine or very about it. I prefer to tackle problems with realism not fantasy.
Click to expand...

None of the solutions I've suggested require changes to the 2nd.
 
Habsy said:
Good because you won't be. The second amendment will not be changed in your lifetime.
Click to expand...

I don't want it changed. I'm simply expecting a modest injection of common sense. Your absolutism prevents you from seeing things in a practical manner.
 
The idea that some control means losing everything is knee-jerk bs.

Why do you need an assault weapon at home? Why the **** anybody needs one is beyond me, but hey, let's say you really have to have one;

What about you can own an assault rifle, but it never leaves the gun club...the only place you should be able to shoot one of those anyways?

Why is that insane?
 
MindzEye said:
Answers like this amaze me.

You're not trying to stop all of the incidents (I've covered this already). You're trying to stop as many as you can with the easiest solutions available. This is how rational problem solving works. Go after the low hanging fruit first and see what impact that has.

The other thing of course is that every time you eliminate the access to a firearm for said ill person you potentially eliminate one of these incidents. Every time you even delay putting one of these force multipliers in their hands, you give yourself an additional opportunity for friends and family of the ill person to get them the help they need or failing that, get law enforcement involved.

It all starts from making access to weaponry harder for the mentally ill (among other subsets) and it's not nearly as difficult in function as you seem to believe. It requires the political will to actually do what the people want done. 97% man...97 ****ing percent are in favour of background checks. Start there. Low hanging fruit.
Click to expand...

Retorts like this amaze me because it implies people don't want these incidents lessened.

You actually think I'm arguing something I'm not. I was there, I saw, I felt. Nothing you can read or watch can come anywhere close to that experience. I want it stopped, I just know what won't be achieved and look to attainable solutions.

Maybe you can bring unicorns in to solve the problem to your liking.
 
MindzEye said:
Who said anything about banning AR-15's?

Make them harder to get, a ban isn't necessary. If the kid has an 8 shot clip in a hand gun instead of a 40 shot clip in a AR, does he kill 17 or "only" 2-3? I'd say that changes something.
Click to expand...

The worst school shooting involved handguns. You can change a clip on a handgun far quicker than the AR15. They also have extended clips for handguns.

All that said, I agree that preventative steps need to be made. For example, you can buy an AR15 at the age of 18 but not a handgun. You need to be 21 to get one of those.
 
Jon Haworth @JonHaworthSky
1h
#BREAKING: The US Embassy has just been attacked with grenades in #Montenegro. One attacker is reportedly dead in the explosion. No word yet on if it is still ongoing or any damage or additional casualties. More to come...
 
CH1 said:
behavioural economics 101.

people cling to absolutes, like real life problems are a wrestling match between good and evil
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but aren't all of you clinging to absolutes? Blah blah ban guns blah blah. Sure that sounds great on a message board. Not so easy to do.
 
Habsy said:
I'm sorry but aren't all of you clinging to absolutes? Blah blah ban guns blah blah. Sure that sounds great on a message board. Not so easy to do.
Click to expand...

Now you're just reading shit in a twisted way. Can't argue with an unreliable reader.

You basically have Cable News/Crossfire disease. Seek help.
 
Habsy said:
Retorts like this amaze me because it implies people don't want these incidents lessened.

You actually think I'm arguing something I'm not. I was there, I saw, I felt. Nothing you can read or watch can come anywhere close to that experience. I want it stopped, I just know what won't be achieved and look to attainable solutions.

Maybe you can bring unicorns in to solve the problem to your liking.
Click to expand...

It's incredible that 30 Billion dollars in spending is considered more realistic than basic gun regulations.
 
Bleedsblue&white said:
The idea that some control means losing everything is knee-jerk bs.

Why do you need an assault weapon at home? Why the **** anybody needs one is beyond me, but hey, let's say you really have to have one;

What about you can own an assault rifle, but it never leaves the gun club...the only place you should be able to shoot one of those anyways?

Why is that insane?
Click to expand...

Because it's a constitutional right. Besides that, I've had rifles for decades and nerve misused them. Ever. You're not going to get the 99.9% of owners to give up their rights because of .1%.
 
Habsy said:
Because it's a constitutional right. Besides that, I've had rifles for decades and nerve misused them. Ever. You're not going to get the 99.9% of owners to give up their rights because of .1%.
Click to expand...

think of the (dead) children
 
Here's an idea, how about actually posting ideas beyond the unrealistic gun banning? Or is it more fun to post unreasonable comments to make yourselves feel oh so superior?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top