Mass shooting of the week, high school in parkland, FL.

#1,126
#1,126
luthervol said:
The logical extension of your argument would be no type of gun should be banned and the types that have been banned should be immediately legalized so we can avoid the black market boogeymen.
Click to expand...

What you said has literally nothing to do with my argument.
 
#1,132
#1,132
NorthDallas40 said:
For that faction I agree with you. But if any of them want serious debate I’d like to hear proposals on it. If a method to retrofit the technology is found I’d probably pay to do it.

I am 100% for responsible gun ownership and could get behind stuff like this if done correctly. But they just ignore it time after time...🤔
Click to expand...

my thing with biometric is I would want a timer with it so I could unlock it for a period of time (or one magazine). I own one gun, the only thing I own it for is so I can shoot it at the range, often with friends or others. As long as the tech can handle that I am fine. but it seems once its in place that could be corrupted.
 
#1,134
#1,134
LouderVol said:
my thing with biometric is I would want a timer with it so I could unlock it for a period of time (or one magazine). I own one gun, the only thing I own it for is so I can shoot it at the range, often with friends or others. As long as the tech can handle that I am fine. but it seems once its in place that could be corrupted.
Click to expand...

I think bio-metrics would be great, but would be 1000% against it being a requirement.
 
#1,139
#1,139
Grand Vol said:
I much prefer the reasonable you that admits they aren't as knowledgeable on a subject and concedes an argument rather than wallowing proudly in their ignorance like some do.
Click to expand...

Even owning guns, I cannot hold a candle to your knowledge on the subject of guns in general. Your knowledge on the case law regarding gun control is also pretty impressive though we do not always agree on interpretation.

Overall on the topic in this thread... There isn't a one size fits all fix to it. There are so many factors to consider, but people advocating for banning all guns are just as misguided as those saying the solution is to arm the teachers. Both arguments are inherently flawed and fail to acknowledge the complexities of this issue.

Factors that both sides need to consider...

1. Availability of guns to the mentally ill.
2. Mental Health in general
3. Possible over medication of American children.
4. Commonalities of shooters.
5. Security of the schools.
6. System to report potential threats. It might be simply reporting to local authorities, but some publicity might be needed to teach people warning signs.

It's not a problem that we can completely solve, but it is one worthy of an attempt to minimize the number of tragedies.
 
#1,141
#1,141
82_VOL_83 said:
I'm still waiting for one of them to google the Tapco Lower and tell us what it is....

Oh crap, I gave them a hint.
Click to expand...

Does it come with craptastic, super high speed, tier 1, megadeath Tapco accessories too?

CWV is the least of your concerns along those regards. For a gun hating liberal, he's surprisingly knowledgeable of firearms.
 
#1,143
#1,143
ClearwaterVol said:
Even owning guns, I cannot hold a candle to your knowledge on the subject of guns in general. Your knowledge on the case law regarding gun control is also pretty impressive though we do not always agree on interpretation.

Overall on the topic in this thread... There isn't a one size fits all fix to it. There are so many factors to consider, but people advocating for banning all guns are just as misguided as those saying the solution is to arm the teachers. Both arguments are inherently flawed and fail to acknowledge the complexities of this issue.

Factors that both sides need to consider...

1. Availability of guns to the mentally ill.
2. Mental Health in general
3. Possible over medication of American children.
4. Commonalities of shooters.
5. Security of the schools.
6. System to report potential threats. It might be simply reporting to local authorities, but some publicity might be needed to teach people warning signs.

It's not a problem that we can completely solve, but it is one worthy of an attempt to minimize the number of tragedies.
Click to expand...

I don't think you're ever going to get anyone on here...okay, there might be an idiot or two, that would argue for guns to the mentally ill. I'm pretty sure we all are in agreement they should be prohibited from owning or buying a firearm.

As 609 pointed out though, it's the definition and criteria for the label "mentally ill" that's up for debate.
 
#1,144
#1,144
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Do you have a spare tire in your vehicle? It’s there if you need it, right?
Click to expand...
Great point.
I do. One, not 12 or 18 or 50. If someone was riding around with 20 spare tires of all different sizes that would be a pretty obvious indication that there was more than just personal security in case of an emergency intended. Maybe they intended to resell, maybe they are stolen, maybe they have some bizarre and unhealthy affection for spare tires. But obviously they have more than what is reasonably needed for personal security.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,145
#1,145
Grand Vol said:
Perhaps...

But what caused that automatic distrust, ambulance chaser?
Click to expand...

Not an easy answer, but...

1. Unethical attorneys
2. Unrealistic clients
3. People feeling they got screwed by the system.

In my experience, when a case is lost the client always feels the attorney is to blame. In my experience, the case is usually won or lost based upon the client's performance on the stand. There are very few gotcha moments in a trial and juries try very hard to reach the correct conclusion and that conclusion is usually based upon the client testimony and written evidence. If the client is unlikable or comes across as evasive then the jury will often deliver an adverse verdict.

The lawyer, if he has a strong case, is to present it in an easy to digest manner to stay out of the way of his witnesses. There is a perception out there that there is a huge difference between attorneys. If they are properly prepared... the difference is quite small.
 
#1,146
#1,146
luthervol said:
Great point.
I do. One, not 12 or 18 or 50. If someone was riding around with 20 spare tires of all different sizes that would be a pretty obvious indication that there was more than just personal security in case of an emergency intended. Maybe they intended to resell, maybe they are stolen, maybe they have some bizarre and unhealthy affection for spare tires. But obviously they have more than what is reasonably needed for personal security.
Click to expand...

Hype man. ^
 
#1,147
#1,147
ClearwaterVol said:
Not an easy answer, but...

1. Unethical attorneys
2. Unrealistic clients
3. People feeling they got screwed by the system.

In my experience, when a case is lost the client always feels the attorney is to blame. In my experience, the case is usually won or lost based upon the client's performance on the stand. There are very few gotcha moments in a trial and juries try very hard to reach the correct conclusion and that conclusion is usually based upon the client testimony and written evidence. If the client is unlikable or comes across as evasive then the jury will often deliver an adverse verdict.

The lawyer, if he has a strong case, is to present it in an easy to digest manner to stay out of the way of his witnesses. There is a perception out there that there is a huge difference between attorneys. If they are properly prepared... the difference is quite small.
Click to expand...

Actually, it was a tongue in cheek response.

79btk.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,148
#1,148
ClearwaterVol said:
I do love the automatic distrust of all attorneys. My profession is more stringently regulated from an ethical standpoint than almost any other profession.
Click to expand...

It's not the definition of regulation that lawyers have trouble with, it's the definition of ethics.
 
#1,149
#1,149
apevol said:
What you said has literally nothing to do with my argument.
Click to expand...

How so? I thought your comment was that banning a type of gun would just increase the black market value and make very bad people even more powerful. Did I misunderstand?

If I understood correctly, then that must have been the case when previous types of guns were banned.

If that was the case, then was the ban a failure and should it be reversed?

If that was not the case, why not?
 
#1,150
#1,150
Grand Vol said:
I don't think you're ever going to get anyone on here...okay, there might be an idiot or two, that would argue for guns to the mentally ill. I'm pretty sure we all are in agreement they should be prohibited from owning or buying a firearm.

As 609 pointed out though, it's the definition and criteria for the label "mentally ill" that's up for debate.
Click to expand...


So far, that has been the ultimate loophole by which the NRA and their wholly owned subsidiaries in both parties have blocked consideration of anything.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top