HorrorMovieFans.com

Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. Common sense gun regulations would do a lot. It's not an end-all-be-all to the issue of gun violence in the U.S. but it makes a hell of a difference.

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote: I'm just curious what you consider to be successful. Would 50% less mass shootings be worth it?

i'm not against background checks and licenses and such, as long as there is still legal access to guns. i'm just wary of politicians. but that seems to be too much for you? i don't know what you want.

You just seem apathetic to the idea of some really simple solutions that can save a lot of lives. And you should be wary of politicians in this case, as the only reason these policies have not been implemented already is because the NRA is deep in the pockets of Republicans. Everyone else wants these things.

if i am concerned and wary of politicians who call for gun control, do i have to also be apathetic to gun registry and background checks?

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote: I'm just curious what you consider to be successful. Would 50% less mass shootings be worth it?

i'm not against background checks and licenses and such, as long as there is still legal access to guns. i'm just wary of politicians. but that seems to be too much for you? i don't know what you want.

You just seem apathetic to the idea of some really simple solutions that can save a lot of lives. And you should be wary of politicians in this case, as the only reason these policies have not been implemented already is because the NRA is deep in the pockets of Republicans. Everyone else wants these things.

if i am concerned and wary of politicians who call for gun control, do i have to also be apathetic to gun registry and background checks?

The ends justify the means. We can be wary of politicians all day and let the world we live in fall apart because we're skeptical of why someone would do a good thing.

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:And yeah inevitably some people will still get their hands on guns and do horrible things with them. But significantly less will and that's the point of government, using your resources to improve problems in society. The gun lovers with nothing to worry about will still have nothing to worry about, just more bureaucracy. That's okay.

and people will still do things even if they can't do it with guns. the solution has to be bigger than just "bureaucracy for gun owners", so i hope this is more than just a gesture to look good politically.

Yeah, they will. Not nearly to the extent or magnitude as if they had guns, which is an improvement. Which is the point of these policies. Improvement.

A lot more productive than sitting on our hands saying "Oh no, we can't eliminate 100% of domestic terrorism, guess we'll do nothing"

there are a lot of ways that could be productive. you focus on the tool, and ignore the tool user, it undoes some of the productivity.

Why not do both? Same time. You got a classroom of 30 kids, 5 of em are eating and huffing the fucking glue, what might a teacher do? You don't ban the glue and the good it does. You might lock the glue up, only bring it out when monitored etc. meanwhile find out why these little shits are getting high high.

good call. but it's not what anyone else seems to want to hear, in this thread.

Specific to me, I just want to hear some plan or idea, fleshed out or vague. Some solutions you can directly apply to help fix this problem. Because the gun ones are clear and with a proven track record of success.

my idea is yes, have background checks, yes have a registry for gun owners and where their guns are. but also when an individual shows signs of radicalization or redflags, don't ignore it or overlook it, because they may not have a weapon yet or aren't planning an attack already. look for ways to curb the intent, even before an attack is carried out, or planned to carry out, if you can. there must be examples of that being done, and having worked already. as much as you say it shouldn't have to be perfect from your end, you seem to want me to have all the answers on my end.

and also, when there are more attacks, inevitably, even with your "common sense" laws, don't take that as indication that you need to take even bigger steps in the name of gun control.

Guns are HARDLY the issue, here. What should we do about knives?

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:And yeah inevitably some people will still get their hands on guns and do horrible things with them. But significantly less will and that's the point of government, using your resources to improve problems in society. The gun lovers with nothing to worry about will still have nothing to worry about, just more bureaucracy. That's okay.

and people will still do things even if they can't do it with guns. the solution has to be bigger than just "bureaucracy for gun owners", so i hope this is more than just a gesture to look good politically.

Yeah, they will. Not nearly to the extent or magnitude as if they had guns, which is an improvement. Which is the point of these policies. Improvement.

A lot more productive than sitting on our hands saying "Oh no, we can't eliminate 100% of domestic terrorism, guess we'll do nothing"

there are a lot of ways that could be productive. you focus on the tool, and ignore the tool user, it undoes some of the productivity.

Why not do both? Same time. You got a classroom of 30 kids, 5 of em are eating and huffing the fucking glue, what might a teacher do? You don't ban the glue and the good it does. You might lock the glue up, only bring it out when monitored etc. meanwhile find out why these little shits are getting high high.

good call. but it's not what anyone else seems to want to hear, in this thread.

Specific to me, I just want to hear some plan or idea, fleshed out or vague. Some solutions you can directly apply to help fix this problem. Because the gun ones are clear and with a proven track record of success.

my idea is yes, have background checks, yes have a registry for gun owners and where their guns are. but also when an individual shows signs of radicalization or redflags, don't ignore it or overlook it, because they may not have a weapon yet or aren't planning an attack already. look for ways to curb the intent, even before an attack is carried out, or planned to carry out, if you can. there must be examples of that being done, and having worked already. as much as you say it shouldn't have to be perfect from your end, you seem to want me to have all the answers on my end.

and also, when there are more attacks, inevitably, even with your "common sense" laws, don't take that as indication that you need to take even bigger steps in the name of gun control.

I didn't ask for perfection, I even said a vague idea was fine. It's just that "focus on the person" is nicely stated nothing without an idea of how to accomplish that, especially in comparison to specific gun control measures.

Let's not worry about making bigger steps when we haven't even made one step (except for the steps backwards). There's a good chance we may never make one step, due to the NRA's stranglehold over the Republican Party. So yeah, doing literally anything would be fantastic.

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote: I'm just curious what you consider to be successful. Would 50% less mass shootings be worth it?

i'm not against background checks and licenses and such, as long as there is still legal access to guns. i'm just wary of politicians. but that seems to be too much for you? i don't know what you want.

You just seem apathetic to the idea of some really simple solutions that can save a lot of lives. And you should be wary of politicians in this case, as the only reason these policies have not been implemented already is because the NRA is deep in the pockets of Republicans. Everyone else wants these things.

if i am concerned and wary of politicians who call for gun control, do i have to also be apathetic to gun registry and background checks?

The ends justify the means. We can be wary of politicians all day and let the world we live in fall apart because we're skeptical of why someone would do a good thing.

then outlaw guns, it could be safer, potentially. otherwise, we're mostly talking about the same thing, but you're pushing for some kind of weird lock step, eye to eye position or else it's just anarchy and dystopia? i don't know...

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote: I'm just curious what you consider to be successful. Would 50% less mass shootings be worth it?

i'm not against background checks and licenses and such, as long as there is still legal access to guns. i'm just wary of politicians. but that seems to be too much for you? i don't know what you want.

You just seem apathetic to the idea of some really simple solutions that can save a lot of lives. And you should be wary of politicians in this case, as the only reason these policies have not been implemented already is because the NRA is deep in the pockets of Republicans. Everyone else wants these things.

if i am concerned and wary of politicians who call for gun control, do i have to also be apathetic to gun registry and background checks?

The ends justify the means. We can be wary of politicians all day and let the world we live in fall apart because we're skeptical of why someone would do a good thing.

then outlaw guns, it could be safer, potentially. otherwise, we're mostly talking about the same thing, but you're pushing for some kind of weird lock step, eye to eye position or else it's just anarchy and dystopia? i don't know...

I'm not pushing for anything. We're having a conversation and I'm asking questions when I wonder how you feel about something.

Headhunter wrote: I didn't ask for perfection, I even said a vague idea was fine. It's just that "focus on the person" is nicely stated nothing without an idea of how to accomplish that, especially in comparison to specific gun control measures.

Let's not worry about making bigger steps when we haven't even made one step (except for the steps backwards). There's a good chance we may never make one step, due to the NRA's stranglehold over the Republican Party. So yeah, doing literally anything would be fantastic.

if someone shows red flags, if someone shows signs of being radicalized, put them under surveillance. take the guns away from them, or deny them legal access to guns, if they don't have them yet. look for ways to talk them down or un-radicalize them if you can.

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote: I'm just curious what you consider to be successful. Would 50% less mass shootings be worth it?

i'm not against background checks and licenses and such, as long as there is still legal access to guns. i'm just wary of politicians. but that seems to be too much for you? i don't know what you want.

You just seem apathetic to the idea of some really simple solutions that can save a lot of lives. And you should be wary of politicians in this case, as the only reason these policies have not been implemented already is because the NRA is deep in the pockets of Republicans. Everyone else wants these things.

if i am concerned and wary of politicians who call for gun control, do i have to also be apathetic to gun registry and background checks?

The ends justify the means. We can be wary of politicians all day and let the world we live in fall apart because we're skeptical of why someone would do a good thing.

then outlaw guns, it could be safer, potentially. otherwise, we're mostly talking about the same thing, but you're pushing for some kind of weird lock step, eye to eye position or else it's just anarchy and dystopia? i don't know...

I'm not pushing for anything. We're having a conversation and I'm asking questions when I wonder how you feel about something.

it just feels like you're also not trusting me when i tell you how i feel, or what my position is? or also a little bit ribbing me for having that position.

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote: I didn't ask for perfection, I even said a vague idea was fine. It's just that "focus on the person" is nicely stated nothing without an idea of how to accomplish that, especially in comparison to specific gun control measures.

Let's not worry about making bigger steps when we haven't even made one step (except for the steps backwards). There's a good chance we may never make one step, due to the NRA's stranglehold over the Republican Party. So yeah, doing literally anything would be fantastic.

if someone shows red flags, if someone shows signs of being radicalized, put them under surveillance. take the guns away from them, or deny them legal access to guns, if they don't have them yet. look for ways to talk them down or un-radicalize them if you can.

Agreed and having a paper trail of gun ownership would prove very helpful to deterring threats.

As far as un-radicalizing people, that would probably require a bit of political, social, cultural and economic upheaval the likes of which we can't comprehend, but I'm cool with trying too.

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote: I'm just curious what you consider to be successful. Would 50% less mass shootings be worth it?

i'm not against background checks and licenses and such, as long as there is still legal access to guns. i'm just wary of politicians. but that seems to be too much for you? i don't know what you want.

You just seem apathetic to the idea of some really simple solutions that can save a lot of lives. And you should be wary of politicians in this case, as the only reason these policies have not been implemented already is because the NRA is deep in the pockets of Republicans. Everyone else wants these things.

if i am concerned and wary of politicians who call for gun control, do i have to also be apathetic to gun registry and background checks?

The ends justify the means. We can be wary of politicians all day and let the world we live in fall apart because we're skeptical of why someone would do a good thing.

then outlaw guns, it could be safer, potentially. otherwise, we're mostly talking about the same thing, but you're pushing for some kind of weird lock step, eye to eye position or else it's just anarchy and dystopia? i don't know...

I'm not pushing for anything. We're having a conversation and I'm asking questions when I wonder how you feel about something.

it just feels like you're also not trusting me when i tell you how i feel, or what my position is? or also a little bit ribbing me for having that position.

Nope, just asking questions.

Headhunter wrote:Nope, just asking questions.

Bring back Ducreux.

I really have no problem with shit like AR-15s being off limits to civilians. Yeah, we have the right to bear arms, but there should be a cap for civilian access. Putting a cap on over-the-top weapons does not "infringe" nor kill our right, we'll still have it. I don't care how "fun" it is to go shoot. Go to a shooting range to rent them to shoot them, or something like that. Same with bazookas.

*cue angry mob*

DancesWithWerewolves wrote:*cue angry mob*

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote: I didn't ask for perfection, I even said a vague idea was fine. It's just that "focus on the person" is nicely stated nothing without an idea of how to accomplish that, especially in comparison to specific gun control measures.

Let's not worry about making bigger steps when we haven't even made one step (except for the steps backwards). There's a good chance we may never make one step, due to the NRA's stranglehold over the Republican Party. So yeah, doing literally anything would be fantastic.

if someone shows red flags, if someone shows signs of being radicalized, put them under surveillance. take the guns away from them, or deny them legal access to guns, if they don't have them yet. look for ways to talk them down or un-radicalize them if you can.

Agreed and having a paper trail of gun ownership would prove very helpful to deterring threats.

As far as un-radicalizing people, that would probably require a bit of political, social, cultural and economic upheaval the likes of which we can't comprehend, but I'm cool with trying too.

it could deter threats in rational people, for sure. if someone is broken to the point of thinking that killing a bunch of helpless unnarmed people is a valid option or even something necessary, then chances are pretty good that they are not rational.

and this is not to say that you shouldn't do anything if you can't get it absolutely right all the time. so you don't have to jump to that again.

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

zombie wrote:

Headhunter wrote: I didn't ask for perfection, I even said a vague idea was fine. It's just that "focus on the person" is nicely stated nothing without an idea of how to accomplish that, especially in comparison to specific gun control measures.

Let's not worry about making bigger steps when we haven't even made one step (except for the steps backwards). There's a good chance we may never make one step, due to the NRA's stranglehold over the Republican Party. So yeah, doing literally anything would be fantastic.

if someone shows red flags, if someone shows signs of being radicalized, put them under surveillance. take the guns away from them, or deny them legal access to guns, if they don't have them yet. look for ways to talk them down or un-radicalize them if you can.

Agreed and having a paper trail of gun ownership would prove very helpful to deterring threats.

As far as un-radicalizing people, that would probably require a bit of political, social, cultural and economic upheaval the likes of which we can't comprehend, but I'm cool with trying too.

it could deter threats in rational people, for sure. if someone is broken to the point of thinking that killing a bunch of helpless unnarmed people is a valid option or even something necessary, then chances are pretty good that they are not rational.

and this is not to say that you shouldn't do anything if you can't get it absolutely right all the time. so you don't have to jump to that again.

Yeah I mean obviously mass shootings are still going to happen. You just try to do better, and right now it's a global embarrassment how this country deals with these tragedies.

This is extremely interesting if anyone is interested in listening.

Sewer of Baltimore News
Off-Duty Police Sergeant On Life Support After Shooting
A veteran Baltimore police sergeant was shot multiple times during a robbery just outside his home. He remained on life support at Shock Trauma on Thursday evening.

Around 3:24 p.m., Sgt. Isaac Carrington, a 22-year veteran, was on his front lawn talking to a neighbor in the 5600 block of Summerfield Avenue when an Acura pulled up. At least one masked man got out of the car and demanded property. The neighbor threw valuables to the ground and ran, while Carrington ran the other way and the gunman gave chase, Police Commissioner Michael Harrison said.

The gunman fired multiple shots, striking Carrington repeatedly. The gunman then got back into the vehicle, which proceeded toward Todd Avenue.
"More than any time, we need community support and information on who committed this heinous, cowardly act," Harrison said.

A frustrated Mayor Bernard C. "Jack" Young also pleaded for community help.

"We need you, the citizens of Baltimore, to help us reduce this violent crime in the city of Baltimore. I'm begging and pleading with you now," Young said. "He's an officer that actually lives in the city of Baltimore, and we want to make sure more officers want to live in the city of Baltimore."

Anyone with information is asked to call Metro Crime Stoppers at 1-866-7-LOCKUP, police homicide detectives at 410-396-2100 or the police Public Integrity Bureau at 410-396-2300.

Though Carrington, 43, appeared conscious and alert when he arrived at the hospital, Shock Trauma Physician-in-Chief Dr. Thomas M. Scalea painted a more dire picture.

"He came in quite unstable," Scalea said. "[It was a] great pre-hospital job to get him to us in a very rapid amount of time to give us a great shot at this,."

Prior to the evening press conference, Carrington had undergone his first surgery. Scalea said there has not yet been time to do a full evaluation and that Carrington remains on life support in intensive care.

"Without getting too specific, he was shot throughout his body a number of times, some in the torso and some in the extremities," Scalea said.

SkyTeam 11 Capt. Roy Taylor said there were about five or six shell casings on the ground at the scene.

A neighbor who saw the shooting said she saw some kind of struggle, then heard several gunshots. Pearson said she saw men take something from Carrington.

Robbed and gunned down in his own fucking yard.