what type of gun nut are you?

[tomdalton22]

What balance? It's all about protecting the children right? It seems we're talking about limiting, or giving up parts, of our Constitutional rights to make everyone safer.

They already did that with the Patriot act.

 

[deathroh]

I am loving this. You're doing some solid work here.

I don't even have anything else to add to this thread.

it's always nice when I don't have to be the source of 99% of the sarcastic, wise ass responses to the dumb shit people say here (excluding the comments from M&B which DR typically responds to).

Funny, i was going to give an atta boy to tinsel for this thread too. High level shit indeed.

 

[zyxt9]

Oh that's right, homemade bombs; I had forgot about those.

Those have killed people too, so let's let everybody who wants to just make and have as many as they want.

By all means Tinsel, lay out your fool proof plan on how to solve the problem. I'm all ears. Seriously, you want to rant and bitch and complain...but what exactly should be done. I'm not asking for a broad, generic response like "more gun laws", but specific laws and restrictions. Maybe I've been not giving you the benefit of the doubt enough and what you will propose will actually solve the problem.

Please...enlighten me.

 

[zyxt9]

These gun laws are infringing upon my 2nd Ammendment rights! Let's just go with mind control instead...

You can laugh, but that is the path that lies before us. And the general populace will go willingly down that path in order to have the latest and greatest technology.

Applying for a new job? Well, we don't have a physical office anymore, we only have links into a virtual office via memristor connections. But what about paperwork? That is already becoming obsolete. What about face to face interaction? With memristors you will be able to have a virtual face-to-face that is so similar to the real thing, you won't notice a big difference.

How prevelant are computers in the workplace already? How fast did companies jump on Cloud Technology? Any edge a business can get, they go after it and you as the employee can either jump onboard or be out of your job.

Will there be resistance? Of course, just like today there are many who don't even have computers, there will be those who never get connected with memristors. But on the other hand...even the Amish are finding more and more of their society utilizing technology, especially in business.

Remember what the Borg always said on Star Trek? Resistance is futile. Military will be first, obviously, but as businesses see what memristors are capable of doing and the prices become affordable, the cyborg reality will be in full swing.

Life is going to change, it always has and will continue to do so. You cannot stop "progress".

Well, except with the pending end of the world on 12/21, so we have that going for us....maybe.

 

[redandguilty]

By all means Tinsel, lay out your fool proof plan on how to solve the problem. I'm all ears. Seriously, you want to rant and bitch and complain...but what exactly should be done. I'm not asking for a broad, generic response like "more gun laws", but specific laws and restrictions. Maybe I've been not giving you the benefit of the doubt enough and what you will propose will actually solve the problem.

Please...enlighten me.

To my knowledge, there is no absolutely secure solution. The fact that there is no way to be absolute in our security does not mean that we should do nothing. Some effort in defense and some level of regulation is worth it. It is entirely fair to ask what should be done, but not being able to completely solve the problem does not make a solution wrong. Asking for a specific answer is fair, but expecting that it will solve the problem is not.

 

[redandguilty]

You can laugh, but that is the path that lies before us. And the general populace will go willingly down that path in order to have the latest and greatest technology.

Applying for a new job? Well, we don't have a physical office anymore, we only have links into a virtual office via memristor connections. But what about paperwork? That is already becoming obsolete. What about face to face interaction? With memristors you will be able to have a virtual face-to-face that is so similar to the real thing, you won't notice a big difference.

How prevelant are computers in the workplace already? How fast did companies jump on Cloud Technology? Any edge a business can get, they go after it and you as the employee can either jump onboard or be out of your job.

Will there be resistance? Of course, just like today there are many who don't even have computers, there will be those who never get connected with memristors. But on the other hand...even the Amish are finding more and more of their society utilizing technology, especially in business.

Remember what the Borg always said on Star Trek? Resistance is futile. Military will be first, obviously, but as businesses see what memristors are capable of doing and the prices become affordable, the cyborg reality will be in full swing.

Life is going to change, it always has and will continue to do so. You cannot stop "progress".

Well, except with the pending end of the world on 12/21, so we have that going for us....maybe.

You're dead on with this. I've worked out of my house for years. I'm the 1st full time employee of a company founded in Pittsburgh even though I live in N.C. People will hand over their decision making to better technology to whatever degree they do because it makes life easier. I already do it with my Garmin all the time. It tells me when there's bad traffic ahead and I take the detour. In the future, I'll use computers to make more of my decisions and those that use computer AI will do better than those that don't. Moneyball equations pick baseball players better than experts. Even Hoke was recommended based on an algorithm that revealed that previous head coaching experience along with recruiting contacts in the region where you intend to coach are more important than win/loss records. Wall Street lets computers take action with more money than I will probably ever control. some say the first AI that does research and invents better than a human is the last thing we will ever have to invent. As we approach that point, the rate of change will continue to become more of a challenge to adjust to.

 

[redandguilty]

Funny, i was going to give an atta boy to tinsel for this thread too. High level shit indeed.

2nd-ed.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

To my knowledge, there is no absolutely secure solution. The fact that there is no way to be absolute in our security does not mean that we should do nothing. Some effort in defense and some level of regulation is worth it. It is entirely fair to ask what should be done, but not being able to completely solve the problem does not make a solution wrong. Asking for a specific answer is fair, but expecting that it will solve the problem is not.

I think what most in favor of no new regulation are arguing is that there already is regulation and it has already proven to be ineffective at preventing crime. Despite what some people think, over the last 100 years gun regulations have been becoming more and more strict. 70 years ago you could walk into a hardware store and buy a tommy gun.

What we've seen during these bans is that if you ban one thing, the next gun in line just replaces it. You're going to ban fully automatic rifles? Ok, we'll use semi auto rifles and semi-auto handguns. Oh, you're going to ban semi auto firearms? Ok, we'll use shotguns and revolvers.

Despite what some may think, you're not any safer unarmed against a revolver than you are against a glock.

I do believe that gun laws should be universal state to state but I don't think that adding more bans or regulations will do anything to prevent the crime we're seeing today. And as I've been trying to suggest, at what point are we diminishing our 2nd amendment right to the point where it's no longer a right but a privilege to own firearms? The point of the 2nd amendment was to give the people power against the government, if the government knows about all your guns and regulates what you can and can't have - then what's the point? As long as guns exist in any form and nothing other than gun laws change - these incidents will happen with the same frequency.

 

[byco42]

You're dead on with this. I've worked out of my house for years. I'm the 1st full time employee of a company founded in Pittsburgh even though I live in N.C. People will hand over their decision making to better technology to whatever degree they do because it makes life easier. I already do it with my Garmin all the time. It tells me when there's bad traffic ahead and I take the detour. In the future, I'll use computers to make more of my decisions and those that use computer AI will do better than those that don't. Moneyball equations pick baseball players better than experts. Even Hoke was recommended based on an algorithm that revealed that previous head coaching experience along with recruiting contacts in the region where you intend to coach are more important than win/loss records. Wall Street lets computers take action with more money than I will probably ever control. some say the first AI that does research and invents better than a human is the last thing we will ever have to invent. As we approach that point, the rate of change will continue to become more of a challenge to adjust to.

I will attest. I work at home in NC for a company based in Michigan, or I will beginning in January. A client offered me a full-time job and I accepted. For the last two years I've free-lanced out of my home.

 

[tinselwolverine]

By all means Tinsel, lay out your fool proof plan on how to solve the problem. I'm all ears. Seriously, you want to rant and bitch and complain...but what exactly should be done. I'm not asking for a broad, generic response like "more gun laws", but specific laws and restrictions. Maybe I've been not giving you the benefit of the doubt enough and what you will propose will actually solve the problem. Please...enlighten me.

 

[byco42]

This specific of some deranged young kid act is not a gun problem or a crime problem, it's a social problem and a medical problem. This is what needs to be regulated and examined as much as or more than guns.

http://www.dhs.state.or.us/caf/safety_model/procedure_manual/appendices/ch4-app/4-14.pdf

 

[tinselwolverine]

. You're going to ban fully automatic rifles? Ok, we'll use semi auto rifles and semi-auto handguns. Oh, you're going to ban semi auto firearms? Ok, we'll use shotguns and revolvers. Despite what some may think, you're not any safer unarmed against a revolver than you are against a glock.

The guy shot the door of the school down with an assault rifle...

He would have been able to do that with a revolver? Is that what you're saying?

Yes, the kids would have been safer if the guy had only had a revolver rather than an assault rifle.

 

[tinselwolverine]

This specific of some deranged young kid act is not a gun problem or a crime problem, it's a social problem and a medical problem. This is what needs to be regulated and examined as much as or more than guns.

http://www.dhs.state.or.us/caf/safety_model/procedure_manual/appendices/ch4-app/4-14.pdf

Maybe we should start be requiring people who use those things to do them under the care and advisement of a MD, and be required to present a prescription to a pharmacist in order to obtain them...

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

The guy shot the door of the school down with an assault rifle...

He would have been able to do that with a revolver? Is that what you're saying?

Yes, the kids would have been safer if the guy had only had a revolver rather than an assault rifle.

The guy had a shotgun in his car, I'm pretty sure that would do. And if I'm not mistaken, he shot out a window, or at least could have, with any gun. An unarmed group of kids is no safer with a maniac wielding a revolver than they are with a maniac wielding a AR. I've said this before, all that it would mean is that he would have had to reload more often. More over, I'd rather get hit with an AR than a shotgun.

 

[tinselwolverine]

The guy had a shotgun in his car, I'm pretty sure that would do. And if I'm not mistaken, he shot out a window, or at least could have, with any gun. An unarmed group of kids is no safer with a maniac wielding a revolver than they are with a maniac wielding a AR. I've said this before, all that it would mean is that he would have had to reload more often. More over, I'd rather get hit with an AR than a shotgun.

Any change in anything potentially changes the dynamics of everything.

Anything that had slowed him down/temporarily disarmed could have allowed responders to get there before he had done as much damage; could have allowed adult school personnel to intercede while he was temporarily disarmed while reloading, etc...

You don't know WHAT would have happened, had he not had access to as lethal a firearm...

 

[byco42]

Maybe we should start be requiring people who use those things to do them under the care and advisement of a MD, and be required to present a prescription to a pharmacist in order to obtain them...

That snark don't pass the sniff test. We need to backtrack and determine the true effects on kids these drugs are creating. That's not going to happen, with BIG PHARMA in the pants of so many legislators and that spends 10X what the NRA spends in political donations.

 

[tinselwolverine]

That snark don't pass the sniff test. We need to backtrack and determine the true effects on kids these drugs are creating. That's not going to happen, with BIG PHARMA in the pants of so many legislators and that spends 10X what the NRA spends in political donations.

I was just goofin' on ya a little bit.

I don't know what, if any, of these meds Adam Lanza was on.

I did look this up after you posted your link, though.

 

[redandguilty]

I think what most in favor of no new regulation are arguing is that there already is regulation and it has already proven to be ineffective at preventing crime. Despite what some people think, over the last 100 years gun regulations have been becoming more and more strict. 70 years ago you could walk into a hardware store and buy a tommy gun.

Unable to prevent all crime does not mean ineffective at preventing crime. We don't know how bad things would be without our existing laws.

What we've seen during these bans is that if you ban one thing, the next gun in line just replaces it. You're going to ban fully automatic rifles? Ok, we'll use semi auto rifles and semi-auto handguns. Oh, you're going to ban semi auto firearms? Ok, we'll use shotguns and revolvers.

Despite what some may think, you're not any safer unarmed against a revolver than you are against a glock.

BS. Even if I'm unarmed and getting shot at, one of the factors that impacts whether or not I get hit is what kind of gun is being shot at me.

I do believe that gun laws should be universal state to state but I don't think that adding more bans or regulations will do anything to prevent the crime we're seeing today. And as I've been trying to suggest, at what point are we diminishing our 2nd amendment right to the point where it's no longer a right but a privilege to own firearms? The point of the 2nd amendment was to give the people power against the government, if the government knows about all your guns and regulates what you can and can't have - then what's the point? As long as guns exist in any form and nothing other than gun laws change - these incidents will happen with the same frequency.

I disagree with your assertion that these incidents will happen with the same frequency regardless of what the gun laws are. How difficult something is to do does change how often people do it.

 

[zyxt9]

That snark don't pass the sniff test. We need to backtrack and determine the true effects on kids these drugs are creating. That's not going to happen, with BIG PHARMA in the pants of so many legislators and that spends 10X what the NRA spends in political donations.

oh, thanks for the reminder byco! once memristors get utilized, people will be more quickly able to detect medical problems like stroke, heart attack, cancer, sugar levels and more by having the nanobots that are already being used inside people roam around inside of us, keeping a constant vigil on our organic selves and reporting to us and our doctors the moment something becomes a problem, prolonging our lives.

the science fictions of yesteryear are already on the horizon of reality. sure, at this time nanobots are very limited in their use and done only at specific research facilities...but for how much longer? how many diabetics would prefer to have constant analysis instead of random, let alone the fact most are still having to stick their fingers to get blood which takes away the feeling in their fingers at best, contributes to problems leading to amputation. nanobots will provide results cheaper, faster, and continuously, allowing doctors and patients more accurate insulin amounts being injected and prolonging the time before diabetics suffer from the disease.

so many things that nanobots will be able to do, and even moreso once the memristor chips get connected. and just imagine the degree to which doctors and pharma companies are going to push this technology once they realize it will serve to sell more product and result in more frequent doctor visits as the nanobots will detect things the doctor needs to treat without having to wait until a patients annual checkup. docs will start seeing patients far more regularly, but also the visits will be faster, likely even virtual. a doctor's dream, being able to treat hundreds of patients daily instead of a couple dozen. $$$CHA-CHING$$$

still, there will be many who oppose such invasive technology entering their body. of course they will be far more likely to live shorter lives, missing out on time with family or friends, living a life with more pain and suffering than those who submit to the technology. everyone will have their preference.

 

[zyxt9]

I disagree with your assertion that these incidents will happen with the same frequency regardless of what the gun laws are. How difficult something is to do does change how often people do it.

but what it doesn't change is the mental state of the individual motivated enough to commit such a crime. when, not if, they become motivated to commit a crime, they will figure out a way to do the deed based on whatever is at their disposal at that time.

maybe less people get killed per incident as a result. or maybe the killers decide to up the game to even more powerful killing methods. that will depend on the individual i suppose.

i'm not saying don't invoke whatever laws you want, i'm just saying don't expect there to be a decrease in the number of events (likely to remain the same) nor the number of individuals killed per event (has potential to increase if the killer decides to up the ante). then there is the availability of guns on the black market. at least there is the chance law enforcement will have a sting operation in place that stops the lunatic in advance. i will concede that could be a very positive outcome of the gun laws, if the government has enough money to fund the sting operations frequently enough.