gun show loophole rant
Quote: SOOPOOI love Ed, but I HATE anyone who keeps spouting the NONSENSE about "background checks" unless they tell me EXACTLY what in the check will disqualify someone from owning a firearm.
3. History of domestic assault without use of a weapon?
This one should DEFINITELY disqualify someone from owning a firearm.
The shooter in this case was yet another "white guy who couldn't get laid."
They pose a much greater threat to our country than Islamic terrorists, but we don't talk about that for some reason...
Quote: ams288This one should DEFINITELY disqualify someone from owning a firearm.
The shooter in this case was yet another "white guy who couldn't get laid."
They pose a much greater threat to our country than Islamic terrorists, but we don't talk about that for some reason...
So you know his sexual history? How do you know he didn’t have an Uncle who took him “camping “ as a kid?
Quote: BozSo you know his sexual history?
The first girl he murdered was one who had repeatedly turned down his advances.
Quote: ams288This one should DEFINITELY disqualify someone from owning a firearm.
The shooter in this case was yet another "white guy who couldn't get laid."
They pose a much greater threat to our country than Islamic terrorists, but we don't talk about that for some reason...
That's EXACTLY my point. There are so MANY reasons people are at risk for using a firearm illegally (shooting at innocent people...) that there is NO WAY to reasonably "background check" to prevent the weapon from being in the bad person's hands..... unless you ban all weapons. Regardless of what the 'framers' meant by the 2nd amendment, the majority of Americans are for gun rights in some fashion.
So ams' answer is really just another question i have about 'background checks'. I would appreciate a real answer from any forum member who supports 'background checks' to my question a few posts back.
Quote: ams288The first girl he murdered was one who had repeatedly turned down his advances.
So that means he didn’t get laid?
But I’m with you on the Domestic Violence as a disqualifier if convicted, not accused.
Quote: BozSo that means he didn’t get laid?
But I’m with you on the Domestic Violence as a disqualifier if convicted, not accused.
I was asking questions, not giving my opinion..... So at age 22, you slap your wife when you find her in the middle of a threesome and you aren't one of the two males, and now at age 48 having been divorced for 25 years you should not be able to own a gun in the horrible neighborhood you live in because you can't find a decent job because of your conviction 25 years ago? And you only plead guilty because that was the deal offered to avoid jail of course....
Quote: SOOPOOI was asking questions, not giving my opinion..... So at age 22, you slap your wife when you find her in the middle of a threesome and you aren't one of the two males, and now at age 48 having been divorced for 25 years you should not be able to own a gun in the horrible neighborhood you live in because you can't find a decent job because of your conviction 25 years ago? And you only plead guilty because that was the deal offered to avoid jail of course....
You pick an extreme example but YES, I’m fine with the loss of rights when convicted of certain crimes. There has to be consequences and if you truly support gun owners rights, defending criminals of certain crimes makes no sense.
Prisons are filled with innocent people, just ask them.
Quote: SOOPOOI love Ed, but I HATE anyone who keeps spouting the NONSENSE about "background checks" unless they tell me EXACTLY what in the check will disqualify someone from owning a firearm.
1. History of depression?
2. History of felony DWI conviction?
3. History of domestic assault without use of a weapon?
4. History of conviction for selling marijuana?
5. History (not present) of schizophrenia?
6. Recent travel to known terrorist training site?
7. Legally blind?
8. Parkinson's disease?
Can someone go 1 -8 for me? Thanks! I will answer that IF guns are legal NONE of the 8 should disqualify you from gun OWNERSHIP...
1). All gun sales/transfers to be legal must go through and FFL...there is no private party/gun show loophole in CA.
2). All FFL gun transfers require a NICS background check & a 10 day waiting period before the gun is released to the buyer
3). 10 round maximum magazine capacity for all firearms.
4). Semi-Auto rifle rules that restrict what you can and can’t have as part of gun (pistol grips, buttons that allow you to drop a magazine, flash suspressors, heat shields around the barrels, etc) as eviidently they make the rifle “safer”?!? It becomes a “which gun feature can I have with which other feature” kind of exercise selecting a semi auto rifle in CA...whatever.
I am not a huge fan of all the CA rules because some are just illogical (a heat shield or “barrel shroud” has no impact on the effectiveness of shooting a rifle round), but also don’t feel particularly infringed on my 2A rights. These are just some of the rules that make CA one of the most restrictive gun law states.
OK, fine...make these rules nationwide tmrw. How does that curb any of the violence at recent school mass shooting? And if it doesn’t help solve the problem (cause San Bernadino happened with all these rules in place), why are we focusing on more “gun limiting legislation”?
Why are there more security measures you have to go through when attending an NHL playoff game or concert than there are when going to school? Have there been more of less violent events inside sporting events/concert halls than schools?
Why do federal buildings have metal detectors and armed security guards and we don’t have those protections in place at our schools?
Security in this country at many more places than just schools is coming...and frankly, I think it is a good thing. You can’t get rid of every pistol, shotgun and semi-auto rifle in this country unless you amend the Constitution. And you can’t eliminate lonliness, depression and mental illness in America either.
Time to think outside of the go to’s of “stricter gun laws”, “stronger background checks”, etc. Choke point entrances like we have at every other large venue, armed security inside the security perimeter, and at schools that means potentially allowing teachers and administrators that want to jump thru certification protocols to carry firearms on campus...we want school shootings to end, start addressing the problem where it is happening.
Quote: SOOPOOCan someone go 1 -8 for me? Thanks! I will answer that IF guns are legal NONE of the 8 should disqualify you from gun OWNERSHIP...
1). Depression - I think this is too broad a category as you state it...depression to point of meds & pschological counseling requires more analysis...I would be OK with additional requirements for anyone with a medical depressuon history to have to jump through more hoops to acquire or maintain gun ownership.
2). Any felony and you’re done...no guns. Don’t we strip voting rights for felons as well?
3). Domestic abuse conviction or plea deal...you’re done for 10 years and could apply for re-consideration.
4). Narcotic convictions that are felonies...see 2). above
5). See 1). above
6). Travel to known terrorists sites is a problem not only for gun ownership but other reasons as well...I think if you want to exercise your 2A rights, you might need to give up certain travel freedoms to keep your guns. If 2A is important to you, not going to certain countries areas should be less important. You get the opportunity to chose which rights you want to exercise.
7). Blind = No Gun ownership, period!
8). Parkinson’s...I don’t know enough about it, but medical conditions should be on a list of items that are reported to the NICS system...including changes in psychiatric health.
I know the medical privacy police are going to have problems with some of the med reporting to NICS system above, but guns are dangerous and I believe your current physical and mental health needs to be factored into anyone’s ongoing exercise of 2A rights.
I also believe in a family member/long time friend being able to alert NICS/FBI to a potential dangerous change in a known gun owner. The penalties for abusive reporting should be severe & there are regulations on reporting that would need to be thought through/analyzed. This would help identify several of the perpetrators prior to them carrying out their evil.
Quote: SOOPOOI love Ed, but I HATE anyone who keeps spouting the NONSENSE about "background checks" unless they tell me EXACTLY what in the check will disqualify someone from owning a firearm.
1. History of depression?
2. History of felony DWI conviction?
3. History of domestic assault without use of a weapon?
4. History of conviction for selling marijuana?
5. History (not present) of schizophrenia?
6. Recent travel to known terrorist training site?
7. Legally blind?
8. Parkinson's disease?
It's why my participation always wanes. No one wants to actually discuss or use critical thinking skills. It's all just stances and catch phrases. But yours is exactly the questions that need to be asked SO THAT PRO AND ANTI CAN FIND COMMON GROUND. You want background checks? It's YOUR lack of specifics that cause me to oppose you. And no matter how many times it's stated, none can be bothered.
1. No. Far too vague, though there can be specifics added in here. Depression, use of depression meds, these alone are not enough. Once you get to literally being talked off a bridge or being hospitalized, perhaps there's something in there that could be done. That would require a discussion about specifics, of course.
2. No. The scale of DWI's includes too many cases that are simply too minor. For example, I often crack the first beer of fishing as I hit the dirt road leading to the dam. Dirt road dead end or not, it is still an actual road, and drinking while driving, open container, and with a minor on board is insta-felony here in the People's Republic. That's too small an infraction against Societal Good for that severe a penalty. On the other hand, I do feel there's a line where DWI convictions should matter. Those fellas with 4 or more are certainly showing a lack of responsibility and concern for their neighbors, to the point that maybe they should lose their rights.
3. Almost surely, and I say "almost" only because of my complete lack of faith in the system, and knowledge that people use the law as a weapon. But people who find themselves convicted of being unable to control themselves to the point of violence should be looked at and possibly barred.
4. Lol.
5. Above my pay grade. I can toss a couple pennies at depression cuz I know it. You'll need an expert for this one.
6. Site? Umm, yeah? Perhaps I'm being to pedantic, but "site" to me means like a damn camp. Had you said "state", my answer would change. People shouldn't be punished or denied rights because business, family, or leisure takes them somewhere Uncle Sam doesn't like. I suppose it wouldn't be too much to ask to keep records of where you went and what you did, or maybe it would. I know I'd be fine with it, maybe others have an argument.
7. No, I think. I might be mistaken, but I believe being "legally blind" covers some folks who could still see well enough to defend their home/selves. Too blind to drive, yes, but not too blind to see a figure in their home. Disabled folks have rights, too.
8. Not familiar enough to say.
As far as blind, I did not say they should shoot em, I asked if they could own them....
Quote: SOOPOOThanks, Face. Let's say the gubmint decided that schizophrenia is a hard no on gun ownership rights. Do you think you would go for treatment if a friend of yours (me) told you that you were exhibiting symptoms of such? I bet not.....
That's why I get so hype at times. The championing of ignorant to downright stupid solutions do real damage, and this is one of them. I won't say my own delay to seek help was entirely because of concern over the SAFEAct, but I can say it for sure had a definite impact. And there are times when I do surrender to .gov, such as when needing to register at the clerks office. It's kind of an easy thing to surrender when you know you're not gonna get hornswaggled on the other end, but asinine regulations have damaged that trust. The current climate surely doesn't make one willing to put faith into bureaucratic integrity.
I get your point, that such things damage the overall health of society as it is a source of discouragement to seeking help. But I do still think there, somewhere, is a line. I just don't know enough about all the different mental illnesses to define many if any.
ETA: And no, I see no reason why someone who can't see couldn't own a gun. They could own planes, trains, and cars, Picasso's, 4k's, and property in Jackson Hole. If I keep having these safety glasses issues, I wouldn't get rid of mine.
Quote: SOOPOOThanks, Face. Let's say the gubmint decided that schizophrenia is a hard no on gun ownership rights. Do you think you would go for treatment if a friend of yours (me) told you that you were exhibiting symptoms of such? I bet not.....
As far as blind, I did not say they should shoot em, I asked if they could own them....
Background checks wouldn't take away guns, they would be a barrier to stop anyone from buying more. So there is no rational reason to avoid treatment, because presumably anyone who wants a gun already has a collection of them.
And anyone with a mental health diagnosis could still get new ones if they aren't a danger to themselves or others -- and actually going in for treatment would go a long way to showing that. It's avoiding treatment that would set of alarms that someone might be a danger. In some cases it might take a few weeks to determine that. Taking an extra three weeks to get a new toy does not infringe on any rights. One thing it would do in addition to reducing gun violence and improving safety is to take profits away from gun sellers. So the NRA and the politicians they give money to will never allow it to happen.
Like so.
Quote:Because he is only 17 he is not eligible for the death penalty or life in prison without parole. If convicted on the state charges, Pagourtzis could theoretically be eligible for parole in 40 years.
One year older, big difference.
Quote: TomGBackground checks wouldn't take away guns, they would be a barrier to stop anyone from buying more. So there is no rational reason to avoid treatment, because presumably anyone who wants a gun already has a collection of them.
And anyone with a mental health diagnosis could still get new ones if they aren't a danger to themselves or others -- and actually going in for treatment would go a long way to showing that. It's avoiding treatment that would set of alarms that someone might be a danger. In some cases it might take a few weeks to determine that. Taking an extra three weeks to get a new toy does not infringe on any rights. One thing it would do in addition to reducing gun violence and improving safety is to take profits away from gun sellers. So the NRA and the politicians they give money to will never allow it to happen.
Thinking about it, a compromise might be that if you are not allowed to have a gun because of mental health issues, you should also lose your right to vote in any election. As you are not stable, you cannot make a sound decision.
Would any of the pro-gun control folk on here go with this as a compromise?
#FreeEvenBob
Quote: AZDuffmanThinking about it, a compromise might be that if you are not allowed to have a gun because of mental health issues, you should also lose your right to vote in any election. As you are not stable, you cannot make a sound decision.
Would any of the pro-gun control folk on here go with this as a compromise?
#FreeEvenBob
inb4 "But voting is a right! I
believe ALL people, of legal age
should be allowed to vote! Not
just that they should be allowed to vote,
but that they absolutely should vote!
ROFL
yawn
:)
KILLING people and VOTING are
two TOTALLY different things!!!"
Quote: RS
inb4 "But voting is a right! I
believe ALL people, of legal age
should be allowed to vote! Not
just that they should be allowed to vote,
but that they absolutely should vote!
ROFL
yawn
:)
KILLING people and VOTING are
two TOTALLY different things!!!"
I am confused by the response. Did I suggest killing was a right?
Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: RS
inb4 "But voting is a right! I
believe ALL people, of legal age
should be allowed to vote! Not
just that they should be allowed to vote,
but that they absolutely should vote!
ROFL
yawn
:)
KILLING people and VOTING are
two TOTALLY different things!!!"
I am confused by the response. Did I suggest killing was a right?
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=inb4
I was just predicting what someone would probably respond with.
Quote: Boz
So is it safe to assume Shotguns and Pistols are now on the agenda to ban by the anti gun fanatics?
Now?
It's already been there, at least if you count anonymous internet ravings. "Assault weapon" is already in the parlance, despite it being a term created by the media with no prior definition, folks consider rifles to be of the assault variety based solely on the amount of rounds it can carry, revolvers are becoming "automatics" because it goes off when you pull the trigger. The amount of misinfo being stated at fact is a career in itself to correct. Even CNN does it plain as day, despite being proved wrong by a reputable source, yet they continue to shout the error as if it were true. Have you even seen the dictionary? Merriam-Webster just changed the definition of "assault rifle" to include, and I quote, "also : a rifle that resembles a military assault rifle but is designed to allow only semiautomatic fire". So either you can sell your Fiero kit for six figures cuz it's the same as an F430 cuz that's the way reality works now, or they're literally changing the very meaning of words to allow their broken logic to operate.
Antis especially... I've heard your cries as to why we seem so adamant, defensive, unwilling to cooperate. This is why. You know how you felt when dips#$% stood up there and said hurr-durr women's bodies can self abort rape babies? And you sat there and said "You are criminally stupid and should have a handler?" That's where we are on our end. Stop supporting these idiots with their bulls#$% and start working with us.
Quote: BozMy issue what could have been done legally to stop this shooting? ....
The mob mentality says we need to stop school shootings and everyone agrees. But what will it actually take and who is actually willing to make those sacrifices. Much easier to go after AR’s than pistols and shotguns.
Quote: ams288The shooter in this case was yet another "white guy who couldn't get laid."
They pose a much greater threat to our country than Islamic terrorists, but we don't talk about that for some reason...
Bolding mine.
It's but one data point and thus perhaps pointless, but I'll share my journey so at least you have an idea of a look inside.
I hit what I would consider critical status over a year ago, should have sought help probably 2 before that. But my own emotional issues finally hit a PCP's floor sometime in the fall. The typical physical questionnaire. Doc says I might be depressed. I say no, I certainly am. He wants to dose me. I tell him I can't; I both very much dislike being muted as well as have moderate reactions to it, including that of intense rage. Doc says he has something that might fix my back and also help me out on the mental front. I agree.
Turns out it was the very s#$% I said not to give me. F#$%ed me all up physically and mentally. If you say it was my fault for not checking, I can only say he instructed me, flat out insisted, that I do not read a word about it, not research a thing, as this was a mental process and I would end up mind-over-mattering the whole operation. So for the pleasure of being treated, mislead, poisoned and assaulted, we're already up to near $50. I reckon it'd be more like $150 if not more for those without the employer insurance hook up.
Long story slightly shorter, I decided that f#$%ed up start would be the start of me seeking help. 3 or 4 more regular doc visits, each time I asked for alternatives to psychotropics, including possible referral to an actual psychiatrist/psychologist, and each time I was sent home for another script of something that made me ill and unstable(er). We're up to $200 with my .gov insurance.
I eventually called a crisis line. It was getting to the point I was gonna do something that caused real pain. I don't mean firebomb the post office level of pain, but even being so consumed I missed a bill payment was too much damage to my life to suffer, and real talk, I make my living on the road and can't be out there like that. I called, was connected to a counselor, and they first yelled at me for using a service that called from a different area code, then in a huff told me she couldn't see me as she was beginning a vacation and wouldn't be around for 3 weeks. A crisis counselor did this. No help, no referral, just "call back the crisis line". Those of you who suffer depression can imagine how hard it is to even make one call, let alone deal with this. But I called back. Two weeks later I get a call back. Two weeks.
Slightly shortening again, I have a counselor. She runs ~$150 an hour. I've seen her twice. So far she knows what I do, my chief complaint, and one of probably 15 major issues I have right now. Some 230 days, (very) roughly $700 in service, 2 poisoning / assaults and a whole lot of frustration, and for all that effort that's been done under the weight of depression, I have someone who knows I get really f#$%ing mad really f#$%ing easily. Something any random stranger could gather from 15min of watching me.
I trust I need no snappy conclusion. Everyone's running around with retarded solutions while the actual answer is quite literally shooting them in the face. This is, without a doubt, an area in desperate need of programs. They will of course cost money, but like, oh I dunno, free clinics, they will save far, far more than you spend.
*Add on: I'm fine. Truly. On a big upswing and feeling pretty good about almost everything. Just figured I'd state it and save some PMs =p
Quote: RSQuote: AZDuffmanQuote: RS
inb4 "But voting is a right! I
believe ALL people, of legal age
should be allowed to vote! Not
just that they should be allowed to vote,
but that they absolutely should vote!
ROFL
yawn
:)
KILLING people and VOTING are
two TOTALLY different things!!!"
I am confused by the response. Did I suggest killing was a right?
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=inb4
I was just predicting what someone would probably respond with.
Sorry, couldn't tell which side you were on.
Quote: AZDuffmanQuote: RSQuote: AZDuffmanQuote: RS
inb4 "But voting is a right! I
believe ALL people, of legal age
should be allowed to vote! Not
just that they should be allowed to vote,
but that they absolutely should vote!
ROFL
yawn
:)
KILLING people and VOTING are
two TOTALLY different things!!!"
I am confused by the response. Did I suggest killing was a right?
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=inb4
I was just predicting what someone would probably respond with.
Sorry, couldn't tell which side you were on.
RS is always one of the good guys. A real Boy Scout, before that term became a negative.
Quote: BozQuote: AZDuffmanQuote: RSQuote: AZDuffmanQuote: RS
inb4 "But voting is a right! I
believe ALL people, of legal age
should be allowed to vote! Not
just that they should be allowed to vote,
but that they absolutely should vote!
ROFL
yawn
:)
KILLING people and VOTING are
two TOTALLY different things!!!"
I am confused by the response. Did I suggest killing was a right?
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=inb4
I was just predicting what someone would probably respond with.
Sorry, couldn't tell which side you were on.
RS is always one of the good guys. A real Boy Scout, before that term became a negative.
It was early, even as a morning person I was still getting into gear.
Quote: AZDuffmanThinking about it, a compromise might be that if you are not allowed to have a gun because of mental health issues, you should also lose your right to vote in any election. As you are not stable, you cannot make a sound decision.
Would any of the pro-gun control folk on here go with this as a compromise?
Pretty much everyone would go along with that. The only problem is that losing the right to vote after being denied the right to buy a gun means a lot of people would simply forego buying another gun. That would hurt gun sales and the people who make money off selling guns are the ones who control our gun laws, so no matter how sensible it is, it will never happen
Quote: FaceThey will of course cost money, but like, oh I dunno, free clinics, they will save far, far more than you spend.
You killed all the conservative support with the above. When they find out how much mental health coverage would cost, they'd rather see people shot.
Quote: billryanAnswer is obvious. Spread more money around. The NRA already proved money works. Use your opponents methods when they are effective.
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/01/nra-donald-trump-guns-fundraising/
Absolutely right. We raised $366 Million in 2016.
Not sure how many steaks that buys in your world. Can anyone do the math?
Yea, it never gets old.
Quote:Kansas has a problem: It has a law allowing teachers to carry guns in the classroom, but almost no schools are using it because insurance companies refuse to provide coverage if they do. As EMC Insurance, the largest insurer of schools in Kansas, explained in a letter to its agents, the company “has concluded that concealed handguns on school premises poses a heightened liability risk.”
Then came the Parkland, Fla., school shooting in February, leading frustrated Republican legislators in Kansas to try forcing the issue with a bill banning “unfair, discriminatory” rates for schools that arm staff. The insurance industry held firm. Last month, the bill failed.
Quote:The states where arming teachers is catching on fastest tend to have strong state immunity laws. That makes it difficult to win large payouts when public employees do something wrong — such as an armed teacher accidentally shooting an innocent child. In these states, insurers might be more willing to cover armed teachers because the potential liability risk is limited.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/one-roadblock-to-arming-teachers-insurance-companies/ar-AAxQBmh?ocid=spartanntp
Does anyone actually disagree?
Quote: SOOPOOI have absolutely no doubt that the individual instances of a teacher shooting a student or other school worker or visitor, or a student stealing the gun and shooting someone, will far outnumber the number of times the teacher will successfully use it to hinder a mass shooter.
Does anyone actually disagree?
School shootings are so rare that you are correct. The problem is when you point out how rare they are, the average person goes crazy and insists we have to DO SOMETHING BIG!
The issue needs to be addressed school by school. What works in the inner city is probably not needed in the suburbs. In the country where everyone knows each other better, something else yet.
It is not about lives. Far more kids commit suicide in part because most public schools are more like a minimum security prison than what a school should be like. We never hear about those in the news beyond maybe local coverage. But it is easy to blame guns for the minority of deaths.
Then some contractor makes a fortune because some types insist we need to tear down the building because "someone was killed in there" and build a new one.
Politics need to be taken out of it.
Schools should not be prisons with armed guards and choke points. Horrible answer to a problem not being addressed, just a facile stop-gap for symptoms that wastes more money and time than it saves and damages the entire student and faculty body.
I don't have a comprehensive answer, but the problem lies in the increasing isolation of kids second-handing their lives through electronics and not connecting to others as fellow humans. We're encouraging generations of psychopaths and starting to pay the price.
Quote: beachbumbabsNot rare enough. So far this year, 21 weeks in, 23 school shootings. Ridiculous stat, more than one a week. Mostly increasing year-over-year for more than 20 years.
Look at it a different way. Not even 1 per every 2 states. We can keep saying "even one is too many." Or we can realize that the problems are localized.
Quote:Politics need to be taken out of it.
I would love to see politics taken out of it. Start with not blaming the NRA after every shooting. Start calling out those who do.
Quote:Schools should not be prisons with armed guards and choke points. Horrible answer to a problem not being addressed, just a facile stop-gap for symptoms that wastes more money and time than it saves and damages the entire student and faculty body.
Schools are already minimum security prisons. There is no escape for the poor kid who does not fit in. Troublemakers are allowed to stay. It is near impossible to get expelled. You "do time" in increments over 12 years. Half of your time there is a near waste. It is half about education and half about institutionalizing everyone to follow orders, to sit in neat little rows all day, to conform. Teachers cry they are "teaching to the test," but we spend more and more money for less and less results. Kids that are picked on are essentially told to "deal with it."
Watch a few episodes from season 1 of "Orange is the New Black." Look at how close it represents the average government school. Not the guards, I mean socially.
Quote:I don't have a comprehensive answer, but the problem lies in the increasing isolation of kids second-handing their lives through electronics and not connecting to others as fellow humans. We're encouraging generations of psychopaths and starting to pay the price.
I mostly agree here. But we have also made little snowflakes and tea cups. Trophy for trying. No dodgeball. "Tolerance" at every turn, so that everything is acceptable. As they reach their late teens they learn that they are not special. They cannot handle it.
Quote: AZDuffmanLook at it a different way. Not even 1 per every 2 states. We can keep saying "even one is too many." Or we can realize that the problems are localized.
I heard a psychologist on the radio
last week talking about school
shootings. He talked a lot about
Leave it to Beaver.
For most of that show, Ward and June
were never worried about their kids.
Most of the time they only had a
general idea where they were. Yet
they never talked about sexual predators
or school shootings or picking up
Wally and the Beav every day to keep
them safe.
It was the late 50's and early 60's, and guns
were far more available than they are now.
You could be 15 and order a handgun
from Sears delivered right to your door.
Yet no kid went off on his classmates. Those
that were bullied or isolated just dealt
with it.
His point was, what's changed since 1960.
Guns have not, they are far less available
now, in fact. What happened is society
changed. We started celebrating and
desensitizing violence on TV, in the movies,
and in video games. And we're seeing the
result. Screaming 'guns guns guns' after
every school shooting is like banning high places
when people commit suicide by jumping
off buildings and bridges. They aren't the
problem. Guns are not the problem either.
Quote: EvenBob
His point was, what's changed since 1960.
Guns have not, they are far less available
now, in fact. What happened is society
changed. We started celebrating and
desensitizing violence on TV, in the movies,
and in video games. And we're seeing the
result. Screaming 'guns guns guns' after
every school shooting is like banning high places
when people commit suicide by jumping
off buildings and bridges. They aren't the
problem. Guns are not the problem either.
Way true. Look at movies pre-1970s. Nowhere near the violence of today. If someone was killed, they mostly just fell. Not all this gore. But it is more than just movies. It is part of the general societal decline since 1964 that I keep telling everyone about. Something changed then, little of it was for the better.
Small wonder part of our aging population looks back at 1964 with such fondness.
Quote: billryan1965 brought America the Civil Rights Act, Fair Housing laws, and our current immigration system.
Small wonder part of our aging population looks back at 1964 with such fondness.
Also brought the beginning of the era of riots, drug culture, and welfare dependency. Rot of inner cities to unlivable conditions.
BTW: The current immigration system has been a disaster.
Quote: AZDuffmanWay true. Look at movies pre-1970s. Nowhere near the violence of today. If someone was killed, they mostly just fell. Not all this gore.
Anybody remember all the hoopla surrounding
the movie The Wild Bunch in 1969? Parents
were warned not to take kids, it was banned
and boycotted for violence in places.
See it today and you'll think it's a joke. But look
at it and think, the tame violence is this movie
was once outrageous in the US, we hated it
and didn't want to see it. Then look around at
the last 20 years of movies and TV, and wonder
why kids shoot up schools.
Quote: billryanDo you think 1950s westerns where the hero shoots the guns out of the bad guys hands was better?
No movie or TV show that celebrates
violence is good for the long run of
society. In the TV show The Rifleman,
he killed an average of 2.5 men per
episode. What kind of message was
Hollywood sending us. And now they
are the ones who scream the loudest
about guns.
Quote: EvenBobNo movie or TV show that celebrates
violence is good for the long run of
society. In the TV show The Rifleman,
he killed an average of 2.5 men per
episode. What kind of message was
Hollywood sending us. And now they
are the ones who scream the loudest
about guns.
Come on , Bob. You are entitled to your own opinion but you can't make shit up.
The Rifleman ran 160 episodes. Using your math, he killed 400 men. In reality, every source I find says the character killed about 140.
Math is hard. Checking simple facts shouldn't be.
Quote: billryanCome on , Bob. You are entitled to your own opinion
"There was a lot of violence on the Rifleman. We once figured out that I killed an average of 2 1/2 people per show. That's a lot of violence." Chuck Conners, from 'The Man Behind The Rifle".
Quote: EvenBob"There was a lot of violence on the Rifleman. We once figured out that I killed an average of 2 1/2 people per show. That's a lot of violence." Chuck Conners, from 'The Man Behind The Rifle".
Why not let the people see the rest of the site you copied that from. The one that goes episode by episode and shows how false a statement your quote is.
https://www.riflemanconnors.com/casualtylist.htm
This supposedly shows every killing. . Count em. Evidently Chuck never did. I'm not sure why a guy jumping on a pitchfork counts as a McCain kill but it looks like the guy was a foreigner so who cares, right?
https://youtu.be/nrOPVo5GFY4?t=6
Quote: beachbumbabsI don't have a comprehensive answer, but the problem lies in the increasing isolation of kids second-handing their lives through electronics and not connecting to others as fellow humans. We're encouraging generations of psychopaths and starting to pay the price.
One thing I would like to see tried, is if a kid reports bullying they put him or her in touch with another kid in school who also complained of bullying and instruct both that while they don't have to become friends they have to watch each other's back.
Quote: billryanWhy not let the people see the rest of the site
Because it's irrelevant. Chuck Conners
said so in his book and who am I to
argue with the Rifleman. I loved that
show, it was my fave western on TV,
and there was a boatload of them.
Chuck said it, good enough for me.
Quote: EvenBobBecause it's irrelevant. Chuck Conners
said so in his book and who am I to
argue with the Rifleman. I loved that
show, it was my fave western on TV,
and there was a boatload of them.
Chuck said it, good enough for me.
Someone saying something is true doesn't make it so. In the real world, facts matter.
Quote: billryanSomeone saying something is true doesn't make it so. In the real world, facts matter.
Yadda yadda. The point is the show glorified
killing, whether he killed 5 people a season
500. The numbers mean nothing, the show
was part of a culture shifting to glorifying
violence. The very people who scream
the loudest about it now, Hollywood, are
obviously the ones who made it that way.
Quote: EvenBobYadda yadda. The point is the show glorified
killing, whether he killed 5 people a season
500. The numbers mean nothing, the show
was part of a culture shifting to glorifying
violence. The very people who scream
the loudest about it now, Hollywood, are
obviously the ones who made it that way.
The point is you spread a lie trying to make a point. The fact that you admit it wasn't true but serves your purpose so it's validity is irrelevant speaks volumes. You can't use a number to make a point then say the number doesn't matter, it's the point that is important.
How many innocent people did he kill? How many did he kill that deserved it? I thought the he man brigade was all for executing scum? Only you could take a morality tale and try to turn it into something else.
Quote: billryanThe point is you spread a lie
So you're saying Chuck Conners was lying
in his book, he knew he had the number
wrong. Do you have a source for that or
is it just a bad guess on your part. All I
was doing was quoting Chuck, I assumed
he would know, it being his show and all.
They banned guns, but people found a way!
