The Flat Earth Society

Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: Fortuna on August 04, 2019, 10:02:39 AM

Title: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: Fortuna on August 04, 2019, 10:02:39 AM
Uh oh. It looks like the veneer was just washed off Robert’s agenda. And I’d venture to say all the other Democrats had a similar reaction. Now, with a second shooting occurring only an hour or so ago in Ohio, they’ll probably go full tilt with gun control in their campaigns. I don’t think they’ll be able to take down the 2nd Amendment, but I can see most blue states banning rifle ammo over the course of the next couple of years.

0:43

https://youtu.be/J8jwqU5LtiM
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: Lord Dave on August 04, 2019, 10:09:10 AM
1. If all Democrats have the same reaction as one, does that mean all republicans wanna go on a shooting rampage like the shooter?

2. Thats called choking up.  Grief is horrible and talking about it makes alot of facial expressions.  That wasn't a laugh ya twit.
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: Fortuna on August 04, 2019, 10:20:00 AM
That wasn't a laugh ya twit.

Thanks CNN, but that wasn’t even a subtle smirk. It was practically a full on guffaw. If you’re going to be dumb, don’t do it in the serious boards.
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: Lord Dave on August 04, 2019, 10:39:37 AM
That wasn't a laugh ya twit.

Thanks CNN, but that wasn’t even a subtle smirk. It was practically a full on guffaw. If you’re going to be dumb, don’t do it in the serious boards.
No. 
And even if it was, what was he laughing about?  According to fox, Dems hate guns and hate mexicans dying.  3 died.  So by fox logic, he should be horrified and distraught at the loss of immigrant and mexican lives, yes?

Or is he laughing because crazy, gun toting republicans are funny?
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: Rama Set on August 04, 2019, 11:33:18 AM
That wasn't a laugh ya twit.

Thanks CNN, but that wasn’t even a subtle smirk. It was practically a full on guffaw. If you’re going to be dumb, don’t do it in the serious boards.

You think he was laughing at the shooting? Make your argument why then.

I’d say it’s more likely he laughed at himself, as a defense mechanism to not be vulnerable in front of fifty people because that’s a hard thing to do. My wife does that sort of thing because she feels silly showing emotion. I’ve done it too. If you really think it’s more likely that he is laughing at a mass shooting than feeling awkward you should probably substantiate it rather than insulting someone else.
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: Roundy on August 04, 2019, 05:10:37 PM
Uh oh. It looks like the veneer was just washed off Robert’s agenda. And I’d venture to say all the other Democrats had a similar reaction. Now, with a second shooting occurring only an hour or so ago in Ohio, they’ll probably go full tilt with gun control in their campaigns. I don’t think they’ll be able to take down the 2nd Amendment, but I can see most blue states banning rifle ammo over the course of the next couple of years.

0:43

https://youtu.be/J8jwqU5LtiM

U b trollin.  That was a heartfelt display of genuine emotion.

Anyway I'll take your bait. Which Democrats, specifically, have called for abolishing the 2nd Amendment in the wake of these tragedies? That always seems like a talking point for the Right when these things happen (politicizing a tragedy, if ya can believe it), but I don't see where it has any real substance.
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: Fortuna on August 04, 2019, 06:24:48 PM
That wasn't a laugh ya twit.

Thanks CNN, but that wasn’t even a subtle smirk. It was practically a full on guffaw. If you’re going to be dumb, don’t do it in the serious boards.

You think he was laughing at the shooting? Make your argument why then.

I’d say it’s more likely he laughed at himself, as a defense mechanism to not be vulnerable in front of fifty people because that’s a hard thing to do.

Because he’s a trained, professional speaker. They don’t get awkward in front of 50 people. And he’s already using it as political ammo for his campaign.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/story/2019/08/04/beto-orourke-trump-el-paso-white-nationalist-1445700
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on August 04, 2019, 08:01:07 PM
I don’t think they’ll be able to take down the 2nd Amendment, but I can see most blue states banning rifle ammo over the course of the next couple of years.
Are you suggesting that would be a bad thing? As a Brit who cannot begin to understand the US’s relationship with guns I cannot begin to imagine why any of you would want a semi-automatic rifle in your houses. If you think they’re fun to shoot then super, go to a range. If you buy the “self defence” argument (which is bollox) then you don’t need a sodding assault rifle for self defence.

You needn’t worry, as a society it’s clear you’re more concerned with your rights than you kids’ lives. I will literally never understand that.
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: Lord Dave on August 04, 2019, 08:19:04 PM
That wasn't a laugh ya twit.

Thanks CNN, but that wasn’t even a subtle smirk. It was practically a full on guffaw. If you’re going to be dumb, don’t do it in the serious boards.

You think he was laughing at the shooting? Make your argument why then.

I’d say it’s more likely he laughed at himself, as a defense mechanism to not be vulnerable in front of fifty people because that’s a hard thing to do.

Because he’s a trained, professional speaker. They don’t get awkward in front of 50 people. And he’s already using it as political ammo for his campaign.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/story/2019/08/04/beto-orourke-trump-el-paso-white-nationalist-1445700

Well, with Trump, he's well armed, isn't he?
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: Fortuna on August 04, 2019, 08:36:15 PM
I don’t think they’ll be able to take down the 2nd Amendment, but I can see most blue states banning rifle ammo over the course of the next couple of years.
Are you suggesting that would be a bad thing? As a Brit who cannot begin to understand the US’s relationship with guns I cannot begin to imagine why any of you would want a semi-automatic rifle in your houses. If you think they’re fun to shoot then super, go to a range. If you buy the “self defence” argument (which is bollox) then you don’t need a sodding assault rifle for self defence.

You needn’t worry, as a society it’s clear you’re more concerned with your rights than you kids’ lives. I will literally never understand that.

Are you presenting your lack of understanding as an argument? That's an odd way to go about it.
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on August 04, 2019, 08:45:20 PM
Are you presenting your lack of understanding as an argument? That's an odd way to go about it.
I don't need to make an argument, the stats about mass shooting do that for me.
I'd be interested to know what your argument is.
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: Fortuna on August 04, 2019, 09:10:47 PM
I don't need to make an argument, the stats about mass shooting do that for me.

So you just thought you'd make a post about how little you know? Okay.

I'd be interested to know what your argument is.

You could start by reading the thread.
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on August 04, 2019, 09:28:05 PM
You could start by reading the thread.
I have. You have implied you are against gun control but you explicitly stated your opinion.
When you do we can have a conversation.

My position, if it's not clear, is that you have a problem in the US. I don't really feel I have to back that up, the shooting stats speak for themselves.
Offering up "thoughts and prayers" isn't really cutting it.
"Good guy with a gun" is a stupid argument - from what I've read the shooter in Ohio was shot and killed within a minute of opening fire which is commendably efficient, but in that time he managed to kill 10 people.

No-one should have a semi-automatic assault rifle in their house. Even if you buy the self-defence argument you don't need a gun that powerful to do that.
So that type of gun should absolutely be controlled, and that sort of control has worked in other countries. Debatable whether it would work in the US, the genie is arguably out of the bottle already, but doing nothing hasn't worked so maybe you should try doing something about this problem.
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: Fortuna on August 04, 2019, 10:55:46 PM
You could start by reading the thread.
No-one should have a semi-automatic assault rifle in their house. Even if you buy the self-defence argument you don't need a gun that powerful to do that.

It's more a question of rights rather than immediate usefulness. However, I do buy the "muh oppressive gubment" argument. At least they had the sense to also take guns away from police in the UK. Our government, in the US, is not as sensible.

(https://foodforthethinkers.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/boston-martial-law-2.jpg)
(http://blogs.reuters.com/edgy-optimist/files/2013/04/RTXYS4P.jpg)
(https://plnami.blob.core.windows.net/media/2013/04/bos2013041929_md.jpg)
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: Rama Set on August 05, 2019, 04:16:38 AM
That wasn't a laugh ya twit.

Thanks CNN, but that wasn’t even a subtle smirk. It was practically a full on guffaw. If you’re going to be dumb, don’t do it in the serious boards.

You think he was laughing at the shooting? Make your argument why then.

I’d say it’s more likely he laughed at himself, as a defense mechanism to not be vulnerable in front of fifty people because that’s a hard thing to do.

Because he’s a trained, professional speaker. They don’t get awkward in front of 50 people.

Nonsense. Of course they do.  Why wouldn’t they? No amount of training can properly prepare you for the reality of dealing with a situation like this.

Quote
And he’s already using it as political ammo for his campaign
Irrelevant. His reaction to a situation in the moment in no way dictates how he will tactically use the situation to further an agenda.
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: Fortuna on August 05, 2019, 04:34:07 AM
Irrelevant. His reaction to a situation in the moment in no way dictates how he will tactically use the situation to further an agenda.

I guess you missed the part where he immediately began blaming Trump for the shooting.
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: Rama Set on August 05, 2019, 05:07:21 AM
Irrelevant. His reaction to a situation in the moment in no way dictates how he will tactically use the situation to further an agenda.

I guess you missed the part where he immediately began blaming Trump for the shooting.

I don’t see how having a speech planned and having a spontaneous emotional reaction are exclusive.
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: Lord Dave on August 05, 2019, 05:16:15 AM
Irrelevant. His reaction to a situation in the moment in no way dictates how he will tactically use the situation to further an agenda.

I guess you missed the part where he immediately began blaming Trump for the shooting.
I don't see how stating facts is bad.
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: Fortuna on August 05, 2019, 08:42:56 AM
Irrelevant. His reaction to a situation in the moment in no way dictates how he will tactically use the situation to further an agenda.

I guess you missed the part where he immediately began blaming Trump for the shooting.
I don't see how stating facts is bad.

Since you seem to have fallen into insanity, I guess we're done here.
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on August 05, 2019, 08:54:47 AM
It's more a question of rights rather than immediate usefulness.
It's a right most people in the UK don't understand or desire. I don't really buy the self defence argument but I can see how that argument could be made.
But you don't need a sodding assault rifle for that, I cannot overstate how crazy it seems to most of us in the UK that you can legally own weapons that powerful and some of you think it's important that you have the right to do so.
If you really want to hunt (even then you don't need a semi-automatic weapon!) or shoot for fun then there are places you can go to do that, you don't need one in your home.
I can only think of one purpose for having such a weapon and it isn't good, it's just asking for trouble.

Quote
However, I do buy the "muh oppressive gubment" argument.

That's an interesting one, I don't really buy it simply because they still have bigger and better toys than you.
And I don't regard the US government as particularly oppressive. Dysfunctional, certainly, but probably not much worse than our lot :(
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: Lord Dave on August 05, 2019, 08:56:24 AM
Irrelevant. His reaction to a situation in the moment in no way dictates how he will tactically use the situation to further an agenda.

I guess you missed the part where he immediately began blaming Trump for the shooting.
I don't see how stating facts is bad.

Since you seem to have fallen into insanity, I guess we're done here.

So President Trump has never said how evil immigrants are?  How bad mexicans are?  How much they bring drugs and rape and murder into America?
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: Fortuna on August 05, 2019, 09:05:18 AM
Irrelevant. His reaction to a situation in the moment in no way dictates how he will tactically use the situation to further an agenda.

I guess you missed the part where he immediately began blaming Trump for the shooting.
I don't see how stating facts is bad.

Since you seem to have fallen into insanity, I guess we're done here.

So President Trump has never said how evil immigrants are?  How bad mexicans are?  How much they bring drugs and rape and murder into America?

I've only ever heard him talk about curbing illegal immigration and stopping criminals and drugs from entering our country. The "Mexican phobia" narrative is something that's been pushed by fringe left wing media, and seems to have caught on due to gullible people and those looking for any reason to hate Trump.

You sound like those people who say BLM is responsible for increased police violence. Next, you'll probably blame the 20+ mass shootings that happened during the last presidency on Obama.
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: totallackey on August 05, 2019, 10:49:43 AM
I don’t think they’ll be able to take down the 2nd Amendment, but I can see most blue states banning rifle ammo over the course of the next couple of years.
Are you suggesting that would be a bad thing? As a Brit who cannot begin to understand the US’s relationship with guns I cannot begin to imagine why any of you would want a semi-automatic rifle in your houses. If you think they’re fun to shoot then super, go to a range. If you buy the “self defence” argument (which is bollox) then you don’t need a sodding assault rifle for self defence.

You needn’t worry, as a society it’s clear you’re more concerned with your rights than you kids’ lives. I will literally never understand that.
We don't need uninformed people labeling any type of gun as an, "assault weapon."

If I want to own a semi-automatic gun, I should be able to own a semi-automatic gun.
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on August 05, 2019, 11:10:44 AM
We don't need uniformed people labeling any type of gun as an, "assault weapon."
I reckon if you can kill 9 people and injure 27 within a minute (reports are that the gunman in Ohio was killed within a minute) then you have an assault weapon.

Quote
If I want to own a semi-automatic gun, I should be able to own a semi-automatic gun.

Why should you? Why should it be your right that you can own a weapon powerful enough to kill/injure that many people that quickly and efficiently?
There are very few countries in the world where that is a right, the reason for that should be obvious.
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: totallackey on August 05, 2019, 12:11:55 PM
We don't need uniformed people labeling any type of gun as an, "assault weapon."
I reckon if you can kill 9 people and injure 27 within a minute (reports are that the gunman in Ohio was killed within a minute) then you have an assault weapon.
I reckon Bruce Lee or Jackie Chan would qualify as an assault weapon.
Quote
If I want to own a semi-automatic gun, I should be able to own a semi-automatic gun.

Why should you?
Because what I own is none of your business.

Because what you own is none of my business.
Why should it be your right that you can own a weapon powerful enough to kill/injure that many people that quickly and efficiently?
Just in case I need to kill that many people quickly and efficiently.

I do not make it business to go around seeking out trouble, but I have seen instances where gangs of people (two or more) do go around seeking out trouble.
There are very few countries in the world where that is a right, the reason for that should be obvious.
"Obvious..."

The good ole," ...if I need to explain it to you, never mind..." mantra.
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: Lord Dave on August 05, 2019, 12:32:09 PM
Irrelevant. His reaction to a situation in the moment in no way dictates how he will tactically use the situation to further an agenda.

I guess you missed the part where he immediately began blaming Trump for the shooting.
I don't see how stating facts is bad.

Since you seem to have fallen into insanity, I guess we're done here.

So President Trump has never said how evil immigrants are?  How bad mexicans are?  How much they bring drugs and rape and murder into America?

I've only ever heard him talk about curbing illegal immigration and stopping criminals and drugs from entering our country. The "Mexican phobia" narrative is something that's been pushed by fringe left wing media, and seems to have caught on due to gullible people and those looking for any reason to hate Trump.

You sound like those people who say BLM is responsible for increased police violence. Next, you'll probably blame the 20+ mass shootings that happened during the last presidency on Obama.
From the mouth of Trump.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/06/16/trump_mexico_not_sending_us_their_best_criminals_drug_dealers_and_rapists_are_crossing_border.html

He literally tells people that Mexico is sending us people with problems who bring crime, drugs, and are rapists.  And some (he assumes but obviously doesn't know) are good people. 
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: totallackey on August 05, 2019, 12:36:48 PM
Irrelevant. His reaction to a situation in the moment in no way dictates how he will tactically use the situation to further an agenda.

I guess you missed the part where he immediately began blaming Trump for the shooting.
I don't see how stating facts is bad.

Since you seem to have fallen into insanity, I guess we're done here.

So President Trump has never said how evil immigrants are?  How bad mexicans are?  How much they bring drugs and rape and murder into America?

I've only ever heard him talk about curbing illegal immigration and stopping criminals and drugs from entering our country. The "Mexican phobia" narrative is something that's been pushed by fringe left wing media, and seems to have caught on due to gullible people and those looking for any reason to hate Trump.

You sound like those people who say BLM is responsible for increased police violence. Next, you'll probably blame the 20+ mass shootings that happened during the last presidency on Obama.
From the mouth of Trump.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2015/06/16/trump_mexico_not_sending_us_their_best_criminals_drug_dealers_and_rapists_are_crossing_border.html

He literally tells people that Mexico is sending us people with problems who bring crime, drugs, and are rapists.  And some (he assumes but obviously doesn't know) are good people.
Can you clarify who you are writing about when you quote Trump?

Surely you cannot consider yourself to be part of the "us."?
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on August 05, 2019, 12:48:05 PM
Because what I own is none of your business.
Because what you own is none of my business.

Yeah, but that's not true, is it? If you own a bloody great bomb which could blow the whole block sky high and I live on that block then that is my business.
For obvious reasons there are lots of weapons you can't buy legally. Sure, you might be a very responsible owner of a bloody great bomb and will only detonate it in the event of a zombie apocalypse, but is everyone so responsible? Probably not, so the sale of certain things are restricted. Some things you need to have licences for, some things no-one is allowed to own privately.

No society works on the basis that people can do what they like and own what they like. For any society to function it has to have some rules.
You can't buy a bomb which would kill hundreds of people.
You can't drive as fast as you like, not just because you might kill yourself but you might kill someone else. You can't drive when you're drunk.

Unless you think it should be a complete free-for-all and you should be able to do whatever you like in which case you're advocating anarchy, not society.

Quote
The good ole," ...if I need to explain it to you, never mind..." mantra.

The events of the last weekend are the explanation, if I have to spell it out. And the fact that these are far from isolated events, they happen with wearying regularity in the US.
And the response is always the same - we need more guns! If only the "good guys" had guns! Well they did have guns in Ohio and the gunman was dispatched with impressive efficiency. Unfortunately he had a weapon powerful enough to kill 9 people and injure 26 beforehand.

The benefits of you being able to have weapon that powerful (your "rights" and the ludicrously unlikely scenario in which you might need to use a weapon that powerful yourself) are more than outweighed by the huge drawback of mass shootings being a common occurrence in the US. 
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: totallackey on August 05, 2019, 01:04:48 PM
Because what I own is none of your business.
Because what you own is none of my business.

Yeah, but that's not true, is it? If you own a bloody great bomb which could blow the whole block sky high and I live on that block then that is my business.
For obvious reasons there are lots of weapons you can't buy legally. Sure, you might be a very responsible owner of a bloody great bomb and will only detonate it in the event of a zombie apocalypse, but is everyone so responsible? Probably not, so the sale of certain things are restricted. Some things you need to have licences for, some things no-one is allowed to own privately.

No society works on the basis that people can do what they like and own what they like. For any society to function it has to have some rules.
You can't buy a bomb which would kill hundreds of people.
You can't drive as fast as you like, not just because you might kill yourself but you might kill someone else. You can't drive when you're drunk.

Unless you think it should be a complete free-for-all and you should be able to do whatever you like in which case you're advocating anarchy, not society.
Where did I advocate the strict policy of bomb ownership you stated?

Nowhere is the answer.

Semi-automatic weapons are not assault weapons.

Automatic weapons are already banned.

You could have spared everyone the extended and unsubstantiated diatribe and strawman you erected.

Now, is Bruce Lee and Jackie Chan to be considered an assault weapon or no?

Quote
The good ole," ...if I need to explain it to you, never mind..." mantra.

The events of the last weekend are the explanation, if I have to spell it out. And the fact that these are far from isolated events, they happen with wearying regularity in the US.
Do you even live in the US?

Answer - no.

Can you have an opinion on things in the US?

Answer - Sure, uninformed as they are.

Should you be trying to influence policy decisions in the US?

Answer - no.

How many more lives are spared via the use of firearms in the US than are lost?

Do you even know that answer?

Not sure anyone does, but light may start to be shed...
https://www.capitalismmagazine.com/2019/04/how-many-lives-are-saved-by-guns-and-why-dont-gun-controllers-care/ (https://www.capitalismmagazine.com/2019/04/how-many-lives-are-saved-by-guns-and-why-dont-gun-controllers-care/)
Besides, no one can argue those calling for more strict gun control laws are those hiding behind the comfort and safety of...you guessed it...ARMED SECURITY GUARDS!!!
And the response is always the same - we need more guns! If only the "good guys" had guns! Well they did have guns in Ohio and the gunman was dispatched with impressive efficiency. Unfortunately he had a weapon powerful enough to kill 9 people and injure 26 beforehand.

The benefits of you being able to have weapon that powerful (your "rights" and the ludicrously unlikely scenario in which you might need to use a weapon that powerful yourself) are more than outweighed by the huge drawback of mass shootings being a common occurrence in the US.
No, they're not.

Nothing matters to me more than my own life.

I can do nothing without having my own life to worry about.

Nothing outweighs my own life.
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: Rama Set on August 05, 2019, 02:07:49 PM
I wouldn’t consider Bruce Lee I’d Jackie Chan to be assault weapons. One is dead, the other is a senior citizen. Should an elite martial artist be out in the same category as a weapon that can kill dozens of people a minute at range? No, a martial artist is not anywhere remotely as dangerous as even a person with a knife nevermind a gun.
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: totallackey on August 05, 2019, 03:21:08 PM
I wouldn’t consider Bruce Lee I’d Jackie Chan to be assault weapons. One is dead, the other is a senior citizen. Should an elite martial artist be out in the same category as a weapon that can kill dozens of people a minute at range? No, a martial artist is not anywhere remotely as dangerous as even a person with a knife nevermind a gun.
Glad you brought up knives.

Handguns are the type of weapon preferred by murders by far...

And personal weapons is within the range of remote (roughly 40 percent).

https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/ (https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/)
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on August 05, 2019, 03:41:40 PM
Where did I advocate the strict policy of bomb ownership you stated?

I was just making the point that societies have rules. Some of those rules include things you can and cannot own. Those rules are not there to "oppress" you, they're there to have some order. Now, different societies have different rules. The right to bear arms is pretty hard baked into your constitution and psyche, in many countries that is not the case. But remember that the amendment was ratified in 1791, before guns were efficient enough to kill 10 people and wound 26 in under a minute. Now you do have weapons that efficient then you might want to think about whether it should be your right to own one. Because you might be nice and responsible and not go around killing loads of people with it, but not everyone is that responsible

Quote
Now, is Bruce Lee and Jackie Chan to be considered an assault weapon or no?

If they are efficient enough to kill 10 people and wound 26 in under a minute with their bare hands, then yes. But I don't think you should be able to own Bruce Lee either.

Quote
Should you be trying to influence policy decisions in the US?

I doubt you are in a position to make policy decisions. I doubt anyone reading this is either. So me expressing my opinions, which you have agreed I'm entitled to, is not doing that.

Quote
How many more lives are spared via the use of firearms in the US than are lost?

Good question and I'd suggest it's one that's very hard to answer.

Quote
Besides, no one can argue those calling for more strict gun control laws are those hiding behind the comfort and safety of...you guessed it...ARMED SECURITY GUARDS!!!

Aren't they just people who see the number of mass shootings as "a problem" and think that problem should be addressed?
Do you see it as a problem? If not then...wow. If you do then what do you think should be done about it?
Realistically, disarming is going to be difficult, even if the gun lobby weren't so powerful the genie is out of the bottle in the US.

Quote
No, they're not.
Well, nuh-uh isn't much of a response but you might want to think about whether you want to live in a society where you're in fear of your life.
Maybe if other people didn't have powerful weapons you wouldn't feel the need to own one yourself.
After the nightclub shooting there was some ridiculous quote (I think from your mate Trump) about how if more people had had guns then the shooter could have been neutralised.
Two stupid things about that:
1) Would having more people in a dark room shooting in panic really have helped the situation?
2) Do you want to live in a society where you feel the need to go for a night out armed?

The trouble is in the US you can't even start the debate without people screaming THEY WANT TO TAKE AWAY ALL YOUR GUNS!
Didn't Trump do just that in the run up to the last election? Claiming that Clinton was going to take away all your guns? The NRA certainly did.
But it was a complete lie, Clinton never said no-one should have guns but any hint at better control leads to that reaction.
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: totallackey on August 05, 2019, 03:59:47 PM
Where did I advocate the strict policy of bomb ownership you stated?

I was just making the point that societies have rules. Some of those rules include things you can and cannot own. Those rules are not there to "oppress" you, they're there to have some order. Now, different societies have different rules. The right to bear arms is pretty hard baked into your constitution and psyche, in many countries that is not the case. But remember that the amendment was ratified in 1791, before guns were efficient enough to kill 10 people and wound 26 in under a minute. Now you do have weapons that efficient then you might want to think about whether it should be your right to own one. Because you might be nice and responsible and not go around killing loads of people with it, but not everyone is that responsible.
You are correct. Not everyone is that responsible.

I am.

And I don't need you or someone else telling me I cannot own what I want to own.
If they are efficient enough to kill 10 people and wound 26 in under a minute with their bare hands, then yes. But I don't think you should be able to own Bruce Lee either.
The people capable of instituting policy decisions such as those you advocate in this instance have at their disposal multiple Bruce Lees and Jackie Chans, effectively owning them.
Quote
Should you be trying to influence policy decisions in the US?

I doubt you are in a position to make policy decisions. I doubt anyone reading this is either. So me expressing my opinions, which you have agreed I'm entitled to, is not doing that.
I have been in such positions, but you are correct. Not any longer.

So, you admit the Russian Hoax was a hoax?
Good question and I'd suggest it's one that's very hard to answer.
Actually, not that hard to answer.

"Criminologist and researcher Gary Kleck, using his own commissioned phone surveys and number extrapolation, estimates that Americans use guns for defensive purposes 1.2 million times each year — and that 1 in 6 Americans who have used guns defensively believe someone would have died but for their ability to resort to their defensive use of firearms." -comes out to roughly 200,000 US lives saved per year.
Quote
Besides, no one can argue those calling for more strict gun control laws are those hiding behind the comfort and safety of...you guessed it...ARMED SECURITY GUARDS!!!

Aren't they just people who see the number of mass shootings as "a problem" and think that problem should be addressed?
Do you see it as a problem?
Not the biggest problem.

What is to prevent a person from simply grabbing a a car and motoring these people down?
If not then...wow. If you do then what do you think should be done about it?
Apprehend the perpetrators, kill them if they cannot be apprehended, reinstitute the National programs on mental health and substance abuse.
Realistically, disarming is going to be difficult, even if the gun lobby weren't so powerful the genie is out of the bottle in the US.
Yep.

And criminals and those intent on using such weapons will...wait for it...find a way to get them anyway.
Quote
No, they're not.
Well, nuh-uh isn't much of a response but you might want to think about whether you want to live in a society where you're in fear of your life.
I am not in fear of my life from morons like any of these idiots committing these acts.
Maybe if other people didn't have powerful weapons you wouldn't feel the need to own one yourself.
After the nightclub shooting there was some ridiculous quote (I think from your mate Trump) about how if more people had had guns then the shooter could have been neutralised.
Explain Switzerland?
Two stupid things about that:
1) Would having more people in a dark room shooting in panic really have helped the situation?
2) Do you want to live in a society where you feel the need to go for a night out armed?
Personally, I don't.

But if I did go out in such a place, I am armed and ready.
The trouble is in the US you can't even start the debate without people screaming THEY WANT TO TAKE AWAY ALL YOUR GUNS!
Didn't Trump do just that in the run up to the last election? Claiming that Clinton was going to take away all your guns? The NRA certainly did.
But it was a complete lie, Clinton never said no-one should have guns but any hint at better control leads to that reaction.
Which side are you arguing again?

You just said "better control," while ceding it is out of control.
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: timterroo on August 05, 2019, 07:10:42 PM
Wow folks, I'm not sure where to start with this one....

There are a lot of arguments that I agree with, on both sides.

First off, and to be clear, I am not in favor of removing guns from private citizens. I am a hunter and a "country kid" - I understand the value of guns. You do not need a so-called "assault rifle" to hunt big game, but I'm not going to get into the ambiguity of what can be considered an assault rifle because that is irrelevant. All guns kill. That is what they are designed to do. It is true that semi-auto and fully auto will kill more people more quickly, respectively.

I love shooting guns. For all you UK people out there, if you don't understand the pleasure in shooting a gun, you might never - and that is ok. It must be an American thing, but let me tell you. It is AMAZING! It is a huge stress reliever to fire off round after round and not only hear the sound of the bullet, but feel it, the recoil, the explosion, the sound of the bullet cutting the air, and as it hits the target.

This enjoyment is increased with semi-auto and fully-auto weapons. That is the number one reason I would like to have one in my home - I currently do not. I own one gun (30/30 winchester lever action, open site). It is a good brush gun for hunting deer - and oh so fun to shoot. Any other reasons for owning one of these seems superficial and moot. We are not under attack and we are not being oppressed by our government. You certainly don't need a semi for self-defense, at least not in the US.

People do not become murderers due to them owning an assault rifle. Eliminating guns will not stop the violence. The violence will adapt/evolve, and there will be other ways to mass-murder.

What's happening, and what will happen with each shooting is an attempt by some law makers to exploit the tragedy for their own agendas. This adds salt on the wound and fuel to the fire. We need to take the focus off of guns for a moment, and focus on our families. We are in the midst of a crisis, and that is called, lack of parenting. Our children are being influenced in ways that weren't imaginable 20 or 30 years ago, and parents of the previous generation suffocated by their own struggles are unaware and incapable of dealing with the social influences on their offspring.

America is indeed in crisis, but it is not a gun crisis. It is a humanitarian crisis. America is lost. Let's stop fighting about whether or not we should control guns, and start worrying about why our children want to destroy each other.
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on August 05, 2019, 08:33:46 PM
America is indeed in crisis, but it is not a gun crisis. It is a humanitarian crisis. America is lost. Let's stop fighting about whether or not we should control guns, and start worrying about why our children want to destroy each other.
Loads of good stuff in that post but just wanted to respond quickly to say that the UK is facing that exact same crisis.
Because of our different laws that manifests itself as stabbings but it is still a big problem in London and while cuts in policing numbers is a factor I agree a lack of parenting and breakdown of family units is a root cause of a lot of this.
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: timterroo on August 05, 2019, 09:12:31 PM
Here is an argument against gun elimination:

Consider the drug market....

Heroin and crack are illegal and punishments for  possession of even small amounts are extreme. Does anyone who wants heroin or crack have a hard time obtaining it? .... No. Even without money people seem to find a way to get it.

Suppose you outlaw guns... Do you think it will be enforced or eliminated any better than heroin or crack? No.

In fact, what will likely happen is that it will create an underground black market in which only criminals will be able to obtain guns because law abiding citizens will of course obey the law.

So, effectively that monopolizes guns for criminals. If I were trying to start a militia, I would be in favor of gun control because that ensures my enemy will have a difficult time arming themselves.
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: Rama Set on August 05, 2019, 11:33:21 PM
I’m in favor of gun control but think banning them is silly. License them to ensure competence. Maybe have firearms inspected as part of the license renewal, so that authorities can ensure you still possess the guns you claim to. Don’t sell guns to mentally ill or criminals. Make people whose guns are involved in a crime that haven’t been properly reported either criminally or civilly liable or both.
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: junker on August 06, 2019, 02:49:08 AM
I’m in favor of gun control but think banning them is silly. License them to ensure competence. Maybe have firearms inspected as part of the license renewal, so that authorities can ensure you still possess the guns you claim to. Don’t sell guns to mentally ill or criminals. Make people whose guns are involved in a crime that haven’t been properly reported either criminally or civilly liable or both.

Going to have to repeal/replace the 2nd amendment for any serious restrictions to actually be put in place.
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: Снупс on August 06, 2019, 02:59:31 AM
Quote
If I want to own a semi-automatic gun, I should be able to own a semi-automatic gun.

Why should you?
Because what I own is none of your business.

And how far does that extend? Do you believe one should be able to own any form of weapon?
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: Lord Dave on August 06, 2019, 05:52:40 AM
Here is an argument against gun elimination:

Consider the drug market....

Heroin and crack are illegal and punishments for  possession of even small amounts are extreme. Does anyone who wants heroin or crack have a hard time obtaining it? .... No. Even without money people seem to find a way to get it.

Suppose you outlaw guns... Do you think it will be enforced or eliminated any better than heroin or crack? No.

In fact, what will likely happen is that it will create an underground black market in which only criminals will be able to obtain guns because law abiding citizens will of course obey the law.

So, effectively that monopolizes guns for criminals. If I were trying to start a militia, I would be in favor of gun control because that ensures my enemy will have a difficult time arming themselves.

This is a flawed argument.
I don't know how to get cocain, heroine, or even weed.  Most people don't.  Those that do were either introduced by someone who used it or someone who sold it. 

Also note: those drugs are super expensive.  People get them but its not like its easy or cheap.  And there are far less drug users than gun owners.
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: totallackey on August 06, 2019, 10:28:06 AM
Quote
If I want to own a semi-automatic gun, I should be able to own a semi-automatic gun.

Why should you?
Because what I own is none of your business.

And how far does that extend? Do you believe one should be able to own any form of weapon?
In general, yes.

When did society commence to think there is such a thing as nirvana while alive?

Or that things are all cuddly and nice and no dangers exist.

Look, the governments exercising control over the bombs now cannot seem to decide to never use them irresponsibly. Almost 20 years of BS Wars fought to protect the monied interests of big oil and big pharma and illicit narcotics trade worldwide, and you think I would somehow be less responsible of an owner?

I don't think so...
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: TomInAustin on August 06, 2019, 04:10:27 PM
Glad you brought up knives.

Handguns are the type of weapon preferred by murders by far...

Tell that to the families of the dead who died in the rash of knife attacks in the UK.
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on August 07, 2019, 11:48:17 AM
You are correct. Not everyone is that responsible.

I am.
Says who? You? Can you see a flaw in a system where people just decide for themselves whether they're responsible or not?

Quote
And I don't need you or someone else telling me I cannot own what I want to own.
You literally just agreed that not everyone is responsible. Therefore, not everyone should be able to own powerful weapons*
So yes, you absolutely do need a system where "someone else" tells you what you can or cannot own.
And what if you're responsible now but then develop some mental illness. Is there any system in place to check up on people?
(*personally I don't think anyone should)

Quote
Actually, not that hard to answer.
"Criminologist and researcher Gary Kleck, using his own commissioned phone surveys and number extrapolation, estimates that Americans use guns for defensive purposes 1.2 million times each year — and that 1 in 6 Americans who have used guns defensively believe someone would have died but for their ability to resort to their defensive use of firearms." -comes out to roughly 200,000 US lives saved per year.

You initially said no-one knows the answer, now you've done a Google and found this and suddenly it's "not that hard" to answer.
Can you seriously not see the flaw in the argument above? The only reason a "good guy" would need a gun is that the "bad guy" probably has a gun.
So if these guns are "saving lives" those lives are only in danger in the first place because guns are so readily available.
Wouldn't it be better to take out guns of both sides of the equation?
Sure, black market blah blah blah but personally I'd have no idea how to get a gun in the UK even if I wanted to. Partly because I don't mix in "those circles" but while something being illegal doesn't mean it isn't available, it's obviously going to be harder and more expensive to get a gun if they're illegal.

Quote
What is to prevent a person from simply grabbing a a car and motoring these people down?

Well, in big cities they often have concrete blocks strategically placed to mitigate that but yes, it can and has happened.
But cars are not intended to harm people. They can be used for that purpose, sure, but it's not their primary function.
Literally the only function of a gun is to wound or kill. No-one should own a weapon that can kill 9 people and injure 27 within 30 seconds.
There is no good purpose for that weapon.

Quote
Apprehend the perpetrators, kill them if they cannot be apprehended
That's what was done in Ohio. With commendable efficiency. Still managed to kill 9 people and injure 27.

Quote
reinstitute the National programs on mental health and substance abuse.

OK, that makes more sense.

Quote
Explain Switzerland?

https://bigthink.com/politics-current-affairs/switzerland-high-gun-ownership?rebelltitem=2#rebelltitem2

Quote
Though Swiss gun ownership remains fairly high for Europe — there are about 27.5 guns for every 100 people in Switzerland — compared to the United States, it's relatively low — for every 100 Americans, there are about 120.5 guns. Whereas the U.S. has nearly 12 deaths per 100,000, Switzerland has around 7.
Considering the discrepancy between U.S. and Swiss gun ownership, that lesser number may be directly attributable to the number of guns in circulation.

Switzerland has mandatory military service for able-bodied adult men, and women may volunteer for military service as well. Mandatory conscription is actually extremely popular in Switzerland, with 73 percent of Swiss citizens voting against a referendum to abolish the practice. After their military service, the Swiss are kept in reserve until age 30–34, if they were an officer — during which time they must keep their service weapon. As a result, many Swiss people own firearms and are highly trained in their use by default. In contrast, if a U.S. citizen lives in a particularly permissive state, they can buy a gun without any kind of training whatsoever.

Furthermore, Swiss civilians must demonstrate that they are physically, intellectually, and mentally capable prior to conscription in the army (source in French). While this is a requirement for service in the U.S. military, it is not required for gun ownership in many states in America.

Technically, American federal law does prohibit the severely mentally ill from purchasing firearms, but the implementation of this ban is poor. The federal background check system is severely understaffed and underfunded, and records on prospective gun buyers' mental conditions are typically incomplete or absent even if a court had previously found them to be unwell. Dylann Roof, who fired upon a church in Charleston, South Carolina, should have failed his background check, but was able to buy his .45 caliber Glock anyways. In contrast, some Swiss police may ask for a certificate from a psychiatrist prior to approving a gun license, which is required before buying most kinds of guns in Switzerland.

Pro-gun advocates in the U.S. often point to Switzerland to prove that high gun ownership doesn't necessarily mean high gun deaths. However, Switzerland has a wildly different regulatory environment and — perhaps most importantly — culture than the US.
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: Lord Dave on August 07, 2019, 11:55:38 AM
Norway has a high gun ownership too but its mostly handguns and hunting rifles.
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: totallackey on August 07, 2019, 12:05:31 PM
You are correct. Not everyone is that responsible.

I am.
Says who? You?
Yep.

Me.
Can you see a flaw in a system where people just decide for themselves whether they're responsible or not?
There are flaws in any human system, so I am unsure of your point.
Quote
And I don't need you or someone else telling me I cannot own what I want to own.
You literally just agreed that not everyone is responsible. Therefore, not everyone should be able to own powerful weapons*
When people demonstrate irresponsibility, then of course they became restricted.

I run a bunch of red lights or speed in an auto, I get my license to drive taken away.

Prior to that, I am granted a license to drive and keep the license.

When I demonstrate irresponsibility here, I become restricted.

Until then, free to roam and own.
So yes, you absolutely do need a system where "someone else" tells you what you can or cannot own.
We have it, and I was never arguing against that.
And what if you're responsible now but then develop some mental illness. Is there any system in place to check up on people?
(*personally I don't think anyone should)
Yes.

https://www.sun-sentinel.com/opinion/commentary/fl-op-viewpoint-ted-deutch-jake-laird-law-20180509-story.html (https://www.sun-sentinel.com/opinion/commentary/fl-op-viewpoint-ted-deutch-jake-laird-law-20180509-story.html)
Quote
Actually, not that hard to answer.
"Criminologist and researcher Gary Kleck, using his own commissioned phone surveys and number extrapolation, estimates that Americans use guns for defensive purposes 1.2 million times each year — and that 1 in 6 Americans who have used guns defensively believe someone would have died but for their ability to resort to their defensive use of firearms." -comes out to roughly 200,000 US lives saved per year.

You initially said no-one knows the answer, now you've done a Google and found this and suddenly it's "not that hard" to answer.
Can you seriously not see the flaw in the argument above? The only reason a "good guy" would need a gun is that the "bad guy" probably has a gun.
So if these guns are "saving lives" those lives are only in danger in the first place because guns are so readily available.
Wouldn't it be better to take out guns of both sides of the equation?
How?
Sure, black market blah blah blah but personally I'd have no idea how to get a gun in the UK even if I wanted to. Partly because I don't mix in "those circles" but while something being illegal doesn't mean it isn't available, it's obviously going to be harder and more expensive to get a gun if they're illegal.
You have zero support for that statement as evidenced by the data.

The criminals here are much more skilled than you or I in obtaining weapons.

Hell, we even had our own beloved AG helping them out in Fast and Furious.

The US had an "assault weapons," ban. According to FBI data, it didn't work.
Quote
What is to prevent a person from simply grabbing a a car and motoring these people down?

Well, in big cities they often have concrete blocks strategically placed to mitigate that but yes, it can and has happened.
But cars are not intended to harm people. They can be used for that purpose, sure, but it's not their primary function.
Literally the only function of a gun is to wound or kill. No-one should own a weapon that can kill 9 people and injure 27 within 30 seconds.
There is no good purpose for that weapon.
Yeah, there is.

That is why police have them.
Quote
Apprehend the perpetrators, kill them if they cannot be apprehended
That's what was done in Ohio. With commendable efficiency. Still managed to kill 9 people and injure 27.
Yes.

Sad.

Unfortunately, you cannot prevent all bad things from happening.
Quote
reinstitute the National programs on mental health and substance abuse.

OK, that makes more sense.

Quote
Explain Switzerland?

https://bigthink.com/politics-current-affairs/switzerland-high-gun-ownership?rebelltitem=2#rebelltitem2

Quote
Though Swiss gun ownership remains fairly high for Europe — there are about 27.5 guns for every 100 people in Switzerland — compared to the United States, it's relatively low — for every 100 Americans, there are about 120.5 guns. Whereas the U.S. has nearly 12 deaths per 100,000, Switzerland has around 7.
Considering the discrepancy between U.S. and Swiss gun ownership, that lesser number may be directly attributable to the number of guns in circulation.
It is attributable to the factual statement that guns don't kill people.

People kill people.
Switzerland has mandatory military service for able-bodied adult men, and women may volunteer for military service as well. Mandatory conscription is actually extremely popular in Switzerland, with 73 percent of Swiss citizens voting against a referendum to abolish the practice. After their military service, the Swiss are kept in reserve until age 30–34, if they were an officer — during which time they must keep their service weapon. As a result, many Swiss people own firearms and are highly trained in their use by default. In contrast, if a U.S. citizen lives in a particularly permissive state, they can buy a gun without any kind of training whatsoever.

Furthermore, Swiss civilians must demonstrate that they are physically, intellectually, and mentally capable prior to conscription in the army (source in French). While this is a requirement for service in the U.S. military, it is not required for gun ownership in many states in America.

Technically, American federal law does prohibit the severely mentally ill from purchasing firearms, but the implementation of this ban is poor. The federal background check system is severely understaffed and underfunded, and records on prospective gun buyers' mental conditions are typically incomplete or absent even if a court had previously found them to be unwell. Dylann Roof, who fired upon a church in Charleston, South Carolina, should have failed his background check, but was able to buy his .45 caliber Glock anyways. In contrast, some Swiss police may ask for a certificate from a psychiatrist prior to approving a gun license, which is required before buying most kinds of guns in Switzerland.

Pro-gun advocates in the U.S. often point to Switzerland to prove that high gun ownership doesn't necessarily mean high gun deaths. However, Switzerland has a wildly different regulatory environment and — perhaps most importantly — culture than the US.
Yes, they do have a different culture.

One that demonstrates that cultural change in the US is necessary.

Not the elimination of weapons .

Not risk aversion.

When I grew up, I could go to school and have my rifle and shotgun in a rack displayed in the back window of my pickup.

I could walk down the street with my shotgun and rifle on my way to my friend's house to go hunting.

What has changed is the culture of the US.

Instant gratification is deadlier than anything else in the world.
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on August 07, 2019, 12:42:03 PM
When people demonstrate irresponsibility, then of course they became restricted.
I run a bunch of red lights or speed in an auto, I get my license to drive taken away.
Prior to that, I am granted a license to drive and keep the license.
When I demonstrate irresponsibility here, I become restricted.
Until then, free to roam and own.
Sounds like a good system. The dude in Ohio...well, he's dead now but were he alive I bet they'd revoke his licence.
He certainly demonstrated irresponsibility. Sure, he killed 9 people and wounded 27 but don't worry, he won't be doing that again.
The system works!
Stop me if you see the problem here...

Quote
Yeah, there is.
That is why police have them.

The police have a specific job which does necessitate firearms in certain situations. Even some police in the UK have firearms. But they are well trained in their usage.
No-one needs a weapon that powerful in their home. Wants, maybe. Needs, no.

Quote
Unfortunately, you cannot prevent all bad things from happening.

Correct. But you can and should take measures to make them less likely.

Quote
Yes, they do have a different culture.
One that demonstrates that cultural change in the US is necessary.

Vaguely agree with this although I don't really know how you change a culture, a culture grows up organically.
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: timterroo on August 07, 2019, 12:45:01 PM
...
Wouldn't it be better to take out guns of both sides of the equation?
Sure, black market blah blah blah but personally I'd have no idea how to get a gun in the UK even if I wanted to. Partly because I don't mix in "those circles" but while something being illegal doesn't mean it isn't available, it's obviously going to be harder and more expensive to get a gun if they're illegal.

The fact you say you would "have no idea how to get a gun" is why it is a bad idea to convert the legal market into a black market. Just because YOU don't know how to get a gun, doesn't mean criminals won't. That is my whole point in the black market argument and relation to the prohibition of drugs - it simply won't work the way you expect. Drugs are harder and more expensive to get, but drug users seem to have no problem getting them. If guns are harder and more expensive to get, it only means law abiding citizens like you and I will have less access to them - it plays right into the hands of criminals since they will not have any problem getting guns.

If we are trying to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and mentally ill, then we need to regulate them, not prohibit them. Prohibiting something removes the states ability to regulate because there won't be anything to regulate - only a crime to punish. There won't be checks and balances, it will be a free, black market.
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: totallackey on August 07, 2019, 12:50:15 PM
When people demonstrate irresponsibility, then of course they became restricted.
I run a bunch of red lights or speed in an auto, I get my license to drive taken away.
Prior to that, I am granted a license to drive and keep the license.
When I demonstrate irresponsibility here, I become restricted.
Until then, free to roam and own.
Sounds like a good system. The dude in Ohio...well, he's dead now but were he alive I bet they'd revoke his licence.
He certainly demonstrated irresponsibility. Sure, he killed 9 people and wounded 27 but don't worry, he won't be doing that again.
The system works!
Stop me if you see the problem here...
We all saw the problem.

Fortunately, we all saw that problem also get shot and killed.
The police have a specific job which does necessitate firearms in certain situations. Even some police in the UK have firearms. But they are well trained in their usage.
No-one needs a weapon that powerful in their home. Wants, maybe. Needs, no.
Police also have automobiles. No one needs a Rolls Royce, so I am unsure of your point.
Quote
Unfortunately, you cannot prevent all bad things from happening.

Correct. But you can and should take measures to make them less likely.
We do.

If you look at the numbers, as gun ownership in the US has risen, gun deaths have gone down.

Quote
Yes, they do have a different culture.
One that demonstrates that cultural change in the US is necessary.

Vaguely agree with this although I don't really know how you change a culture, a culture grows up organically.
Could use some more background on the statement you offer and how it relates to personal freedom within any culture.
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on August 07, 2019, 01:51:56 PM
If we are trying to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and mentally ill, then we need to regulate them, not prohibit them. Prohibiting something removes the states ability to regulate because there won't be anything to regulate - only a crime to punish. There won't be checks and balances, it will be a free, black market.
Guns are prohibited in many countries and you don't get huge gun crime statistics. Gun control legislation has also demonstrably worked in other countries.
You should regulate them of course, but that won't stop a black market existing if people want to own them "unofficially", so what problem does that solve?
The real issue you guys have is that so many guns are out there in circulation. And very powerful weapons too, more powerful than anyone would reasonably need in their home.
This is not a problem which has an easy fix although better background checks and bans on the more powerful weapons would be a start. I cannot overstate how crazy it seems to most Brits that many of you guys can walk into a shop and buy very powerful weapons with the minimum of fuss.
Agree with lackey about the culture, that's a hard one to change. There aren't many countries where gun culture is so ingrained.
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: totallackey on August 07, 2019, 01:58:52 PM
If we are trying to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and mentally ill, then we need to regulate them, not prohibit them. Prohibiting something removes the states ability to regulate because there won't be anything to regulate - only a crime to punish. There won't be checks and balances, it will be a free, black market.
Guns are prohibited in many countries and you don't get huge gun crime statistics. Gun control legislation has also demonstrably worked in other countries.
Those countries also have decidedly different cultures, as we have already discussed and agreed upon.
You should regulate them of course, but that won't stop a black market existing if people want to own them "unofficially", so what problem does that solve?
We do regulate them, as we regulate a considerable amount of things. And as you notice, and as everyone notices, there are still going to be problems.
The real issue you guys have is that so many guns are out there in circulation. And very powerful weapons too, more powerful than anyone would reasonably need in their home.
No.

Because as is shown by factual data, as gun ownership has risen in the US the amount of gun violence has gone down.
This is not a problem which has an easy fix although better background checks and bans on the more powerful weapons would be a start. I cannot overstate how crazy it seems to most Brits that many of you guys can walk into a shop and buy very powerful weapons with the minimum of fuss.
Again, your culture is different.
Agree with lackey about the culture, that's a hard one to change. There aren't many countries where gun culture is so ingrained.
There is a powerful group bent on eroding the very Constitution this country was founded upon, in particular the Bill of Rights.

Fortunately, there is a powerful group bent toward keeping those Bill of Rights safe.
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: Rama Set on August 07, 2019, 02:14:22 PM
No.

Because as is shown by factual data, as gun ownership has risen in the US the amount of gun violence has gone down.


you will have to show some evidence for this because this study (http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/jpj_firearm_ownership.pdf) shows that owning a gun makes you more likely to be shot and that firearm prevalence increases violent crime.
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on August 07, 2019, 02:37:27 PM
There is a powerful group bent on eroding the very Constitution this country was founded upon, in particular the Bill of Rights.

Fortunately, there is a powerful group bent toward keeping those Bill of Rights safe.

Your Bill of Rights sucks:

Quote
The Bill of Rights seemed to be written in broad language that excluded no one, but in fact, it was not intended to protect all the people - whole groups were left out. Women were second-class citizens, essentially the property of their husbands, unable even to vote until 1920, when the 19th Amendment was passed and ratified.

Native Americans were entirely outside the constitutional system, defined as an alien people in their own land. They were governed not by ordinary American laws, but by federal treaties and statutes that stripped tribes of most of their land and much of their autonomy. The Bill of Rights was in force for nearly 135 years before Congress granted Native Americans U.S. citizenship.

And it was well understood that there was a "race exception" to the Constitution. Slavery was this country's original sin. For the first 78 years after it was ratified, the Constitution protected slavery and legalized racial subordination. Instead of constitutional rights, slaves were governed by "slave codes" that controlled every aspect of their lives. They had no access to the rule of law: they could not go to court, make contracts, or own any property. They could be whipped, branded, imprisoned without trial, and hanged. In short, as one infamous Supreme Court opinion declared: "Blacks had no rights which the white man was bound to respect."

(source: https://www.aclu.org/other/bill-rights-brief-history)

Thankfully we live in more enlightened times now and amendments have been made to address some of these issues. The "right to bear arms" comes from the late 18th century, long before powerful weapons were available. It could do with a bit of an update now those powerful weapons are available with the obvious problems they are causing in your country.
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: totallackey on August 07, 2019, 03:45:37 PM
No.

Because as is shown by factual data, as gun ownership has risen in the US the amount of gun violence has gone down.


you will have to show some evidence for this because this study (http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/jpj_firearm_ownership.pdf) shows that owning a gun makes you more likely to be shot and that firearm prevalence increases violent crime.
https://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/gun_violence/sect01.html (https://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/gun_violence/sect01.html)
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: totallackey on August 07, 2019, 03:49:16 PM
There is a powerful group bent on eroding the very Constitution this country was founded upon, in particular the Bill of Rights.

Fortunately, there is a powerful group bent toward keeping those Bill of Rights safe.

Your Bill of Rights sucks:

Quote
The Bill of Rights seemed to be written in broad language that excluded no one, but in fact, it was not intended to protect all the people - whole groups were left out. Women were second-class citizens, essentially the property of their husbands, unable even to vote until 1920, when the 19th Amendment was passed and ratified.

Native Americans were entirely outside the constitutional system, defined as an alien people in their own land. They were governed not by ordinary American laws, but by federal treaties and statutes that stripped tribes of most of their land and much of their autonomy. The Bill of Rights was in force for nearly 135 years before Congress granted Native Americans U.S. citizenship.

And it was well understood that there was a "race exception" to the Constitution. Slavery was this country's original sin. For the first 78 years after it was ratified, the Constitution protected slavery and legalized racial subordination. Instead of constitutional rights, slaves were governed by "slave codes" that controlled every aspect of their lives. They had no access to the rule of law: they could not go to court, make contracts, or own any property. They could be whipped, branded, imprisoned without trial, and hanged. In short, as one infamous Supreme Court opinion declared: "Blacks had no rights which the white man was bound to respect."

(source: https://www.aclu.org/other/bill-rights-brief-history)

Thankfully we live in more enlightened times now and amendments have been made to address some of these issues. The "right to bear arms" comes from the late 18th century, long before powerful weapons were available. It could do with a bit of an update now those powerful weapons are available with the obvious problems they are causing in your country.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion and we will agree to disagree, with me remaining thankful they still apply and things becoming more equitable in the greatest nation in the history of man leading the way.

Where millions flee to each year, seeking to better their way of life.
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: Rama Set on August 07, 2019, 04:00:46 PM
No.

Because as is shown by factual data, as gun ownership has risen in the US the amount of gun violence has gone down.


you will have to show some evidence for this because this study (http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/jpj_firearm_ownership.pdf) shows that owning a gun makes you more likely to be shot and that firearm prevalence increases violent crime.
https://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/gun_violence/sect01.html (https://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/gun_violence/sect01.html)

this doesn't support your position.  it shows that gun violence has gone down overall, it says nothing about rates of gun ownership rising and it doesn't correlate the two which is what you need for your point to matter.
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: totallackey on August 07, 2019, 04:06:55 PM
No.

Because as is shown by factual data, as gun ownership has risen in the US the amount of gun violence has gone down.


you will have to show some evidence for this because this study (http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/jpj_firearm_ownership.pdf) shows that owning a gun makes you more likely to be shot and that firearm prevalence increases violent crime.
https://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/gun_violence/sect01.html (https://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/gun_violence/sect01.html)

this doesn't support your position.  it shows that gun violence has gone down overall, it says nothing about rates of gun ownership rising and it doesn't correlate the two which is what you need for your point to matter.
Gun ownership has risen in the US.

In 2014, the number was estimated at 270 million.

Today that number is estimated to nearly 400 million.

I made a statement:

As gun ownership has risen in the US, gun violence has gone down.

The statement stands as factual.
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: Rushy on August 07, 2019, 04:11:29 PM
Gun ownership rates don't predict the gun violence rates in any country. There's no correlation between guns per capita and violent crime per capita. Gun violence is instead predicted by median income of an area. It's why Scandinavian countries have such high gun ownership rates, but less violent crime than Germany or the UK, because the income inequality in the latter nations is far greater.

The US has the worst violent crime rate in the west because it has the most income inequality in the west, not because of gun ownership rates.
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: totallackey on August 07, 2019, 04:13:48 PM
Gun ownership rates don't predict the gun violence rates in any country. There's no correlation between guns per capita and violent crime per capita. Gun violence is instead predicted by median income of an area. It's why Scandinavian countries have such high gun ownership rates, but less violent crime than Germany or the UK, because the income inequality in the latter nations is far greater.

The US has the worst violent crime rate in the west because it has the most income inequality in the west, not because of gun ownership rates.
The US does not have the worst violent crime rate in the West.

The US barely cracks the top 100.
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: Rushy on August 07, 2019, 04:17:42 PM
The US does not have the worst violent crime rate in the West.

The US barely cracks the top 100.

Which Western nations have a higher violent crime rate than the US? Are you going to start listing off Soviet bloc nations or something?
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: Rama Set on August 07, 2019, 04:21:27 PM
The US does not have the worst violent crime rate in the West.

The US barely cracks the top 100.

Which Western nations have a higher violent crime rate than the US? Are you going to start listing off Soviet bloc nations or something?

he is going to be pedantic and say something like Venezuela.
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: totallackey on August 07, 2019, 04:22:58 PM
The US does not have the worst violent crime rate in the West.

The US barely cracks the top 100.

Which Western nations have a higher violent crime rate than the US? Are you going to start listing off Soviet bloc nations or something?
The US does not have the worst violent crime rate in the West.

The US barely cracks the top 100.

Which Western nations have a higher violent crime rate than the US? Are you going to start listing off Soviet bloc nations or something?

he is going to be pedantic and say something like Venezuela.
The US does not have the worst violent crime rate in the West.

The US barely cracks the top 100.

Which Western nations have a higher violent crime rate than the US? Are you going to start listing off Soviet bloc nations or something?
Are Soviet bloc nations still in existence?

When you write Western nation, what do you mean?

When I read Western nations, I mean Western Hemisphere.

But here:
https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Violent-crime/Murder-rate-per-million-people (https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Violent-crime/Murder-rate-per-million-people)
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: Lord Dave on August 07, 2019, 04:35:26 PM
No.

Because as is shown by factual data, as gun ownership has risen in the US the amount of gun violence has gone down.


you will have to show some evidence for this because this study (http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/jpj_firearm_ownership.pdf) shows that owning a gun makes you more likely to be shot and that firearm prevalence increases violent crime.
https://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/gun_violence/sect01.html (https://www.ojjdp.gov/pubs/gun_violence/sect01.html)

this doesn't support your position.  it shows that gun violence has gone down overall, it says nothing about rates of gun ownership rising and it doesn't correlate the two which is what you need for your point to matter.
Gun ownership has risen in the US.

In 2014, the number was estimated at 270 million.

Today that number is estimated to nearly 400 million.

I made a statement:

As gun ownership has risen in the US, gun violence has gone down.

The statement stands as factual.

Uhhh... The article you linked had data only up to 1996.  So anything you out out after is worthless without the other data to support it.

Also, the total number of guns is irrelevant.  According to that old article, many owners had several guns.  This, naturally, is irrelevant.  One gun, from a position of gun owners, is the same as 20.  We want the number of people who own a gun.

400 million people in America can't be gun owners as the population of America isn't 400 million. (327 million currently.  Which includes babies, fyi)

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/15/politics/guns-dont-know-how-many-america/index.html

Here's some numbers.  Now as the article says, we don't know for sure how many gun owners there are.  Its illegal to have that data at a federal level.

But if the polls are accurate, the number of actual gun owners is decreasing while the number of guns owned is increasing.  Which means a few have an armory full of weapons.

Also, violent crime has been decreasing nation wide for years, not just gun related.  And its across the board so it has nothing to do with gun ownership (which varies heavily by state).
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: Rushy on August 07, 2019, 04:38:23 PM
The US does not have the worst violent crime rate in the West.

The US barely cracks the top 100.

Which Western nations have a higher violent crime rate than the US? Are you going to start listing off Soviet bloc nations or something?
The US does not have the worst violent crime rate in the West.

The US barely cracks the top 100.

Which Western nations have a higher violent crime rate than the US? Are you going to start listing off Soviet bloc nations or something?

he is going to be pedantic and say something like Venezuela.
The US does not have the worst violent crime rate in the West.

The US barely cracks the top 100.

Which Western nations have a higher violent crime rate than the US? Are you going to start listing off Soviet bloc nations or something?
Are Soviet bloc nations still in existence?

When you write Western nation, what do you mean?

When I read Western nations, I mean Western Hemisphere.

But here:
https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Violent-crime/Murder-rate-per-million-people (https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Violent-crime/Murder-rate-per-million-people)

Does it not bother you that the only nations with higher crime rates than the US are literally third world?

Also, it's not very useful to define "the West" as the Western hemisphere. This would exclude Europe, so I'm sure you can understand why Europe not being considered Western nations is hilarious. When speaking about Western nations, this is usually nations that are direct cultural derivatives of western Europe, such as most of North America and Australia. It's not helpful to include nations which are literally in the Western hemisphere and exclude others. If we have to compare ourselves to third world nations just to be "better" with every European nation sitting on top of us, surely that means they're doing something correctly that we are not.
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: totallackey on August 08, 2019, 10:39:41 AM
Uhhh... The article you linked had data only up to 1996.  So anything you out out after is worthless without the other data to support it.
Okay.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/03/5-facts-about-crime-in-the-u-s/ (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/03/5-facts-about-crime-in-the-u-s/)
"1Violent crime in the U.S. has fallen sharply over the past quarter century. The two most commonly cited sources of crime statistics in the U.S. both show a substantial decline in the violent crime rate since it peaked in the early 1990s. One is an annual report by the FBI of serious crimes reported to police in approximately 18,000 jurisdictions around the country. The other is an annual survey of more than 90,000 households conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, which asks Americans ages 12 and older whether they were victims of crime, regardless of whether they reported those crimes to the police.

Using the FBI numbers, the violent crime rate fell 49% between 1993 and 2017. Using the BJS data, the rate fell 74% during that span. (For both studies, 2017 is the most recent full year of data.) The long-term decline in violent crime hasn’t been uninterrupted, though. The FBI, for instance, reported increases in the violent crime rate between 2004 and 2006 and again between 2014 and 2016."
Also, the total number of guns is irrelevant.  According to that old article, many owners had several guns.  This, naturally, is irrelevant.  One gun, from a position of gun owners, is the same as 20.  We want the number of people who own a gun.

400 million people in America can't be gun owners as the population of America isn't 400 million. (327 million currently.  Which includes babies, fyi)
I never stated there were 400 million people in the US.

I stated there were an estimated 400 million guns in the hands of citizens in the US.
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/15/politics/guns-dont-know-how-many-america/index.html

Here's some numbers.  Now as the article says, we don't know for sure how many gun owners there are.  Its illegal to have that data at a federal level.

But if the polls are accurate, the number of actual gun owners is decreasing while the number of guns owned is increasing.  Which means a few have an armory full of weapons.

Also, violent crime has been decreasing nation wide for years, not just gun related.  And its across the board so it has nothing to do with gun ownership (which varies heavily by state).
Correct, which supports the position that new legislation regarding guns isn't the solution.
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: totallackey on August 08, 2019, 11:44:30 AM
Does it not bother you that the only nations with higher crime rates than the US are literally third world?

Also, it's not very useful to define "the West" as the Western hemisphere. This would exclude Europe, so I'm sure you can understand why Europe not being considered Western nations is hilarious. When speaking about Western nations, this is usually nations that are direct cultural derivatives of western Europe, such as most of North America and Australia. It's not helpful to include nations which are literally in the Western hemisphere and exclude others. If we have to compare ourselves to third world nations just to be "better" with every European nation sitting on top of us, surely that means they're doing something correctly that we are not.
Perhaps you meant to write "figuratively," rather than "literally."

http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/third-world-countries/ (http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/third-world-countries/)

Most of the countries, I believe, are listed on the "developing countries," list.

As far as European Countries are concerned, we do things more correctly, as we are the ones left to bail them out when they can't control their own defenses.
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: Rushy on August 08, 2019, 02:17:00 PM
Perhaps you meant to write "figuratively," rather than "literally."

http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/third-world-countries/ (http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/third-world-countries/)

Most of the countries, I believe, are listed on the "developing countries," list.

"Our country is great as long as we compare it to people who have trouble ensuring the tap water is clean." Yes, America, truly the greatest country ever. Our new motto is "At least we're not Guatamala!"

As far as European Countries are concerned, we do things more correctly, as we are the ones left to bail them out when they can't control their own defenses.

By that you mean they've successfully scammed us into paying for their defense and will continue to do so for the near future? They have longer and happier lives but I'm sure we can just sit around and laugh about how our military has more pew pew than them. That really evens it out.
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: Rama Set on August 08, 2019, 03:03:30 PM
Well, if you guys got your shit together on healthcare you could lengthen that lifespan too.
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: timterroo on August 08, 2019, 05:11:12 PM
Well, if you guys got your shit together on healthcare you could lengthen that lifespan too.

There are more reasons than just shitty healthcare contributing to the unhealthy status is this nation. This is where culture comes into play. How many Americans' primary diet comes from fast food? How many Americans sit on their asses not doing much more than engaging in vicarious activity? Stress is also a factor, but I can't speak to the differences of stress from one place to another except for the difference of rural vs urban or industrialized vs pre-industrialized. Urban and industrial areas will experience more stress on average - anthropological studies will show.
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: totallackey on August 08, 2019, 05:30:17 PM
Perhaps you meant to write "figuratively," rather than "literally."

http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/third-world-countries/ (http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/third-world-countries/)

Most of the countries, I believe, are listed on the "developing countries," list.

"Our country is great as long as we compare it to people who have trouble ensuring the tap water is clean." Yes, America, truly the greatest country ever. Our new motto is "At least we're not Guatamala!"
Yes, according to AOC, our toilet water is cleaner than the rest of the world supply.

Unsure of the gripe.

And yes, no retraction on the 3rd world bit...

I thought things were meant to be PC here for some reason...
As far as European Countries are concerned, we do things more correctly, as we are the ones left to bail them out when they can't control their own defenses.

By that you mean they've successfully scammed us into paying for their defense and will continue to do so for the near future? They have longer and happier lives but I'm sure we can just sit around and laugh about how our military has more pew pew than them. That really evens it out.
I think it demonstrates who is calling the shots...

Now that we have agreed on that, can't we just blame the prime minister of France and the Queen for El Paso?
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: Rama Set on August 09, 2019, 11:54:05 AM
Well, if you guys got your shit together on healthcare you could lengthen that lifespan too.

There are more reasons than just shitty healthcare contributing to the unhealthy status is this nation. This is where culture comes into play. How many Americans' primary diet comes from fast food? How many Americans sit on their asses not doing much more than engaging in vicarious activity? Stress is also a factor, but I can't speak to the differences of stress from one place to another except for the difference of rural vs urban or industrialized vs pre-industrialized. Urban and industrial areas will experience more stress on average - anthropological studies will show.

Yeah, although ideally, and people are starting to adopt this, the best healthcare is preventative. It would be great if we had more dieticians, masseuses, etc... and people took advantage of them. Imagine if personal trainers could be covered by insurance? Exercise, diet and rest are the best defenses against stress.
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: timterroo on August 09, 2019, 12:41:05 PM
Well, if you guys got your shit together on healthcare you could lengthen that lifespan too.

There are more reasons than just shitty healthcare contributing to the unhealthy status is this nation. This is where culture comes into play. How many Americans' primary diet comes from fast food? How many Americans sit on their asses not doing much more than engaging in vicarious activity? Stress is also a factor, but I can't speak to the differences of stress from one place to another except for the difference of rural vs urban or industrialized vs pre-industrialized. Urban and industrial areas will experience more stress on average - anthropological studies will show.

Yeah, although ideally, and people are starting to adopt this, the best healthcare is preventative. It would be great if we had more dieticians, masseuses, etc... and people took advantage of them. Imagine if personal trainers could be covered by insurance? Exercise, diet and rest are the best defenses against stress.

Agreed. I'd add more to this, but I feel like it's getting off topic....
Title: Re: Robert “Beto” O’Rourke laughs at El Paso shooting
Post by: totallackey on August 11, 2019, 11:36:56 AM
Some sense behind the numbers:
https://youtu.be/u8c2wKISv0o