Welcome to 'Murica

[Stoked]

Agreed, but we have to recognize that blacks face particularly challenging circumstances. 4 times isn't just "more pronounced" imo. It is shockingly more pronounced.

I can agree, and do, with that while still having my stance on including other affected groups. Even if it is drastically less pronounced.

 

[NAOS]

No, just how it was meant in light of the whole thread. A lot of ideas in here are nothing more than theoretical. they sound great but are unrealistic.

But prop of your one post that could, I can see how, be read in way that supports your characterization of my stance on buy back programs v. 5 that directly contradict your characterization over the length of the thread.

The first quote is not me arguing against buy back programs. It fits with all my quoted posts. That a buy back program by itself isn't enough

You cannot hear me over what you want to be a mixed message. Not the same thing. But keep trying NAOS.

I want there to be a mixed message? LINK?

 

[Stoked]

I want there to be a mixed message? LINK?

https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php?43489-Welcome-to-Murica/page22

I can play games as well.

 

[NAOS]

https://jazzfanz.com/showthread.php?43489-Welcome-to-Murica/page22

I can play games as well.

can you back yourself further into a corner? Where are you now....?.... resting on the assumption that your messages are crystal clear and I'm deliberately confusing them?

 

[Stoked]

can you back yourself further into a corner? Where are you now....?.... resting on the assumption that your messages are crystal clear and I'm deliberately confusing them?

Safely in the same place I have always been.

Gun buy back programs are great but not enough.

Could you be any more intellectually dishonest? Can you admit that you took one post in a way I didn't mean it because one post was less clear than the others? Despite ample evidence to the contrary which you ignored.

Probably not, your need to feel superior won't allow it. You're at your best, imo, when you stop trying so hard.

I see no need to hash this out further.

 

[♪alt13]

I was just waiting for your unsubstantiated, pessimistic, throw-your-hands-up post of the morning. Yick. Links?

Los Angeles's gun buyback programs, which are very lightly funded, leave plenty of room for optimism. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/07/la-gun-buyback-2013_n_3229435.html

this also happened in the REAL WORLD.

What do you honestly think this program has accomplished?

My thoughts are that it only encourages junkies to steal guns. Now if they can't sell it on the black market they know that at least the mayor will buy it from them. Do you really think that people that want guns and spent good money on them are turning them in for gift cards? Do you think it has actually reduced the demand or number of guns in LA?

 

[Stoked]

What do you honestly think this program has accomplished?

My thoughts are that it only encourages junkies to steal guns. Now if they can't sell it on the black market they know that at least the mayor will buy it from them. Do you really think that people that want guns and spent good money on them are turning them in for gift cards? Do you think it has actually reduced the demand or number of guns in LA?

Either way that is one less gun on the streets that probably did not need to be there. I'd like it to go national tbh. But I agree, I don't think many gun owners would turn in their weapons.

Either way the program has its use and benefits. One piece to the puzzle.

 

[♪alt13]

Either way that is one less gun on the streets that probably did not need to be there. I'd like it to go national tbh. But I agree, I don't think many gun owners would turn in their weapons.

Either way the program has its use and benefits. One piece to the puzzle.

It isn't one less gun on the streets. It might be one less gun in an attic but the demand on the street is still there. That demand is not any less fulfilled because of this program.

 

[Stoked]

It isn't one less gun on the streets. It might be one less gun in an attic but the demand on the street is still there. That demand is not any less fulfilled because of this program.

If that gun was on the street, some will and some wont, than it is one less gun on the street.

Even if it is a gun in the attic it is one less gun that some idiot may find and accidently shoot a family member or something.

 

[NAOS]

What do you honestly think this program has accomplished?

My thoughts are that it only encourages junkies to steal guns. Now if they can't sell it on the black market they know that at least the mayor will buy it from them. Do you really think that people that want guns and spent good money on them are turning them in for gift cards? Do you think it has actually reduced the demand or number of guns in LA?

I think it demonstrated, albeit at a small scale, that a basic monetary intervention could tap into the flow of guns. These programs are question-free/anonymous, so it's just cash (or cash-equivalent) for guns. No police. No social work. I'm actually very interested in experiments that simply throw money at a problem without any of the other baggage.

Stolen gun? I don't care. Crashing the black market prices? Awesome.

I have no idea how to gauge the demand for guns in LA. I'm guessing nobody here does.

 

[NAOS]

Safely in the same place I have always been.

Gun buy back programs are great but not enough.

Could you be any more intellectually dishonest? Can you admit that you took one post in a way I didn't mean it because one post was less clear than the others? Despite ample evidence to the contrary which you ignored.

Probably not, your need to feel superior won't allow it. You're at your best, imo, when you stop trying so hard.

I see no need to hash this out further.

dude, I'm not sure where this went off the rails, but I certainly wasn't trying to take it there. And I didn't like that suggestion. Nor the one about intellectual dishonesty. Your posts were confusing to me, plain and simple. It certainly isn't my job to comb through the entire thread and read between the lines. You're communicating in a crowd, so you should expect static. Asking people to own up to confused/staticy moments is just dumb.

Nobody has claimed that gun buybacks are "enough." As far as I'm concerned, that was certainly clear when I laid out my bullet points and it was only one amongst a field.

 

[RandyForRubio]

We already know allot of these reasons and already try to prevent them.
Depression, poverty, child abuse, neglect, temper issues, drugs and alcohol to name a few.

We already have psychiatrists and zanax and other medications.
We have alcoholics anonymous and narcotics anonymous.
We have welfare, and food stamps.
We have family counseling available and laws against child molesting
Anger management classes.

To name a few

What impact do a lot of these medications have though? I believe a majority of these shooters have been on prescribed medication, i could be wrong though, I'd have to check again. Anyways, is there a strong linkage there? I don't know, but it seems plausible.

 

[fishonjazz]

What impact do a lot of these medications have though? I believe a majority of these shooters have been on prescribed medication, i could be wrong though, I'd have to check again. Anyways, is there a strong linkage there? I don't know, but it seems plausible.

I have no idea.
My point was that there are already things available to help with mental illness. (Drugs and counseling being two of the things)

 

[Jamezz]

Every time I see this thread it reminds me of the beautiful region in Spain, where Neto played and where I happen to have some family:

Typical dish:

And some other great local produce:

 

[NAOS]

ok

 

[Jamezz]

ok

That's right amazing isn't it, there's a whole world out there NAOS.

 

[♪alt13]

I think it demonstrated, albeit at a small scale, that a basic monetary intervention could tap into the flow of guns. These programs are question-free/anonymous, so it's just cash (or cash-equivalent) for guns. No police. No social work. I'm actually very interested in experiments that simply throw money at a problem without any of the other baggage.

Stolen gun? I don't care. Crashing the black market prices? Awesome.

I have no idea how to gauge the demand for guns in LA. I'm guessing nobody here does.

I doesn't "demonstrate that a basic monetary intervention could tap into the flow of guns" to do that you need to show that there are actually fewer guns.

How does it crash black market prices? That was not what I was implying at all. I was simply saying that it has provided another market for would be thieves to sell their "goods".

*** for bold You cited the link. You pointed to it as "what happened in the real world" so you should explain what you mean. What happened?

 

[TroutBum]

wouldn't expect anything other than this kind of response. You peaked on this site a long time ago, brough. You're boring.

I'm ok with boring. In fact, I'd rather be a bore than a know-it-all pooh finger, who by the way, doesn't show up to fights that he starts. Just sayin'... You're kind of a poosay.

OK, my bad, I just realized I miswrote the question.

How many people do you think he could have shot WITHOUT a gun?

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say zero -- unless, of course, he was using a wrist rocket, a crossbow, blunderbus, or even a taser. I'm still not sure what this has to do with anything here. The same question could be asked the other way, "How many people do you think he could have shot if he HADN'T seen the 24/7 glorification of guns and mass/school shootings?"

The first thing is to get people to realize that there is a problem. In 2013, the most recent year for which I can easily find statistics, there were 33,169 deaths from firearms in the US (excluding deaths by "legal intervention," IE, cop). Almost 2/3 of those, 21,175, were suicides. The MINORITY were the attention-grabbing mass killings like what happened in Oregon.

Honestly, the first part of a solution would be to get Wayne LaPierre out. He has led the NRA in a disastrous and radical direction since the early 90's, although they have been pretty rough since the mid-late 70's.

As far as safety issues, common sense solutions: A "loaded" flag, so that you know if there is a round chambered. Chamber locks, trigger locks, smart guns. There are many ways to make guns safer AND THE NRA OPPOSES THEM.

Yes, education, but the mandatory education which has been proposed upthread assumes that, A) Everyone wants to learn (and wants their kids to learn) about guns, and B) we live in a fully armed society where we need to learn about guns.

Yes, waiting periods. Especially for handguns, honestly. Again, these are the weapons most commonly used in suicides and "crimes of passion," and, generally, if you can get people to wait 72 hours, they won't go thru with it.

Maybe if the NRA and the gun fondlers would agree to reasonable steps, there wouldn't be need for unreasonable ones.

This is the first intelligent thing that's been posted in this thread, minus anything authored by me.

I think you can preserve the sporting nature of hunting and remove automatic and semi-automatic weapons from the flow of guns. I come from a family of hunting enthusiasts (I was enrolled in hunters' safety on the first eligible day), and I've never met a passionate, sporting hunter who needed a magazine. Never met one who needed a handgun.

*I'd support halting the manufacture and importation of all automatic and semi-automatic guns.
*I'd support a large, nationwide, taxpayer-funded gun buyback program that paid handsomely for automatic and semi-automatic guns. Program also to be funded with taxes levied at the retail point-of-sale of all guns going forward. EDIT: Ultimately, the gun-buyback prices need to be kept higher than the prices for used guns.
*I'm not sure how much time the watchdogs need to adequately investigate a gun buyer, but I'd support a system that gave them the adequate time.
*I do have discomforts with the State being able to dictate what someone does with their guns once they've purchased them. So, I would not attempt to ban the casual selling of used guns (it'd be ineffective law anyway). But, I would put a system in place where buyers and sellers could officially register the transfer of property if they chose to (since any investigation of a crime committed with a gun is already searchable to the last-known owner if such forensic evidence is found... or at least I think that's the case... and I can image a seller wanting to be free of that).

None of these attempt to criminalize those people who are currently in possession of guns of any type.




(That's a quick sketch)

Your quick sketch is the stupidest thing I've read all day. For someone who claims to be, and loves to pound their chest because they're so smart, you sure are ****ing dumb.

The only good thing to come out of this thread is that no matter how hard the Left cries, whines, pisses, and moans, guns are never going to go away. Ever. Obama isn't going to take them, NAOS isn't going to take them, the NWO isn't going to take them.

LOL, "gun buyback"... That is so damn delusional that I actually typed out "LOL."

 

[gandalfe]

TroutBum - if you want to have a discussion, stop with the ad hominem attacks.

 

[gandalfe]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say zero -- unless, of course, he was using a wrist rocket, a crossbow, blunderbus, or even a taser. I'm still not sure what this has to do with anything here. The same question could be asked the other way, "How many people do you think he could have shot if he HADN'T seen the 24/7 glorification of guns and mass/school shootings?"

But that's my point. So many people say, "It's not about the guns!" when it is obviously at least a LITTLE bit about the guns.