Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10979
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 10 Mar 2018, 9:10 am

rayjay
As to the politics, it's hard to imagine a March on Washington with the rallying cry: "We want competent government".


On March 24 there will be a large demonstration.

https://marchforourlives.com/

We can't ignore the issues of gun control that this tragedy raises. And so, I'm asking – no, demanding – we take action now.
Cameron Kasky

It sounds to me like they want both responsive government and competent government.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 12 Mar 2018, 10:01 am

rickyp wrote:rayjay
As to the politics, it's hard to imagine a March on Washington with the rallying cry: "We want competent government".


On March 24 there will be a large demonstration.

https://marchforourlives.com/

We can't ignore the issues of gun control that this tragedy raises. And so, I'm asking – no, demanding – we take action now.
Cameron Kasky

It sounds to me like they want both responsive government and competent government.


To ascribe this shooting to gun control is to put on a blindfold, cheerleading garb, and raise the Democratic banner high over head. Sorry, but this shooting could have been prevented—no, should have been prevented. The shooter should have had a record, but government policies and incentives prevented his arrest. He should have been stopped in several ways, but wasn’t.

The answer is not mass punishment.

In essence, the message you are pushing is this: “In that Cruz used an AR-15, we should ban them. In that Cruz was under 21, we should ban 21 year-olds from buying guns. Simultaneously, we should ignore the fact that the secondary causes of the shooting were local and Federal government failures. They were not asterisks; but policies. Nonetheless, let’s treat every American as if he/she is a potential Cruz.”

No, let’s not.

If we handled cars, alcohol, knives, or mountain-climbing gear the way liberals are suggesting we handle semi-automatics, no one could drive, drink, own anything but a butter knife, or buy climbing gear (because people die every year from climbing mountains).

These high school kids are being treated as if they know something. They know as much as any other victim of violent crime, which is to say they know trauma.

Are we lowering the drinking age? Marital age? Age for enlistment in the military? Age for signing contracts?

If these kids are so brilliant, why not?

Oh? Because some of them . . . Eat Tide pods?

They’re kids. They need to not be treated like some combination of Moses and Solomon.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10979
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 12 Mar 2018, 2:34 pm

Fate
If we handled cars, alcohol, knives, or mountain-climbing gear the way liberals are suggesting we handle semi-automatics, no one could drive, drink, own anything but a butter knife, or buy climbing gear (because people die every year from climbing mountains).


If the US handled ownership and use of guns the same way as cars:
- Cruz would have had to have passed both a written and practical fire arms safety test to get a license.
- Cruz would have been required to have liability insurance, and presumably the insurance company would have their requirements.
- Cruz would have had to register his firearms and then obtain a permit for them every year.
- The purchase transactions would have been registered.

Now, before licenses are granted the various state drivers license databases could have been searched to see if there was any reason the license could have been withheld. (Outstanding warrants and charges for instance). For guns that could mean a place to put a hold on gun purchases by persons deemed dangerous. (Court orders, previous convictions, perhaps a flag for mental defect?)

And if the US handled ownership of guns this way, there's a good chance Cruz wouldn't have owned his guns.
Plus, if the US handled guns the same way as cars, AR15's would be restricted weapons. The same way race cars are restricted, or transport trucks.... Without special licensing people aren't allowed to drive transport trucks. Again, if AR15 and other weapons that have proven to be massively destructive in the commission of crimes... were restricted Cruz probably wouldn't have had one.
Nothing is certain. But with all the attempts to reduce automobile accidents and deaths, responsible people have followed the laws. And automobile deaths have dramatically declined over time.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 12 Mar 2018, 3:10 pm

rickyp wrote:Fate
If we handled cars, alcohol, knives, or mountain-climbing gear the way liberals are suggesting we handle semi-automatics, no one could drive, drink, own anything but a butter knife, or buy climbing gear (because people die every year from climbing mountains).


If the US handled ownership and use of guns the same way as cars:
- Cruz would have had to have passed both a written and practical fire arms safety test to get a license.
- Cruz would have been required to have liability insurance, and presumably the insurance company would have their requirements.
- Cruz would have had to register his firearms and then obtain a permit for them every year.
- The purchase transactions would have been registered.


You inverted what I said, so your point is simply a rehash of what you’ve said hundreds of times. Thanks. For. Nothing.

A better analogy: the cops spot Cruz driving drunk, dozens of times. They decline to arrest him. The FBI gets several credible calls that he’s driving across lanes, smacking the center divider, but they don’t take those calls seriously (pretending the FBI cares about drunk driving).

One night, Cruz gets behind the wheel and starts driving at a high rate of speed, driving the wrong way on the freeway. By the time he’s stopped, there have been multiple cars driven off the road to try and avoid him. Ultimately, 17 are dead and many others are injured.

Democrats immediately seek to ban cars and call for alcohol to be served in smaller containers.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10979
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 12 Mar 2018, 5:29 pm

Fate
A better analogy: the cops spot Cruz driving drunk, dozens of times. They decline to arrest him. The FBI gets several credible calls that he’s driving across lanes, smacking the center divider, but they don’t take those calls seriously (pretending the FBI cares about drunk driving).
One night, Cruz gets behind the wheel and starts driving at a high rate of speed, driving the wrong way on the freeway. By the time he’s stopped, there have been multiple cars driven off the road to try and avoid him. Ultimately, 17 are dead and many others are injured.


This is a good analogy. Because it pretty much represents the attitudes towards drunk driving a few decades ago. But attitudes changed And then laws, and enforcement of laws... And it really started with grass roots activists..

My daughter, Cari, was killed by a multiple repeat offender drunk driver on May 3, 1980. Four days later, I started Mothers Against Drunk Driving. I was shocked to learn that over the past decade, approximately 250,000 people were killed in alcohol-related fatal crashes. At that time, public health professionals considered drunk driving to be the No. 1 killer of Americans between the ages of 15 and 24. Drunk driving seemed like the only socially acceptable form of homicide in this country and the attitude toward perpetrators was benign, if not passive.
I also learned that probably nothing would happen to the man who killed my daughter. So I became a grass roots activist. As I found out, grass roots means, "working outside the system to change the inequities within" and activist means, "getting the job done."

MADD is a good example of how to change society. We didn't give up and neither should those who wish to see a safer world. You can have an impact and you can save lives.
That was the least I could do for my daughter.
I feel the pain for families of those who died at Sandy Hook. For those who want to do something about gun violence, change isn't easy. What is needed is a grass-roots movement similar to MADD that encompasses all aspects of society. To be effective, it must include all the stakeholders involved and reach a consensus that will make implementation -- whether in laws, increased education or other policy changes -- a given.

https://www.cnn.com/2012/12/24/opinion/ ... index.html

Fate
Democrats immediately seek to ban cars and call for alcohol to be served in smaller containers


Maybe you could think back and remember some of the laws that actually were created and enforced to reduce the deaths from drunk driving?
According to the article I linked you to, from 1981 to 86 over 700 state laws were enacted to help reduce alcohol related traffic fatalities.
Government responded to the wishes of the populace....
And there has been significant harm reduction.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 12 Mar 2018, 10:49 pm

Ricky, that’s nonsense. Attitudes toward DUI have changed? Really? So, would you support deporting an illegal alien whose only crime was DUI?

If I found someone who recently had a DUI which caused death or injury and had a few prior DUI’s, would that change your mind about how much “change” has actually happened?

And, since we’re in a rush to legalize pot and other drugs (CA now issues tickets for heroin, cocaine, etc., much like it did for marijuana 30 years ago), we will see more DUI’s not less.

But, have Democrats tried to ban cars? Limit the size of alcohol purchases?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10979
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 13 Mar 2018, 5:51 am

Fate
Attitudes toward DUI have changed? Really?


According to Candace Lightner it has...
If it hasn't why were over 700 State laws enacted in the 80s.
If it hasn't why this?
Since 1982, drunk driving fatalities on our nation’s roadways have decreased 51%, while total traffic fatalities have declined nearly 20%. Among persons under 21, drunk driving fatalities have decreased 80%.


Fate
If I found someone who recently had a DUI which caused death or injury and had a few prior DUI’s, would that change your mind about how much “change” has actually happened?

No. Because one can always find an isolated incident. When attempting to understand a trend one looks at the meta data. Which I've just quoted to you.

Fate
And, since we’re in a rush to legalize pot and other drugs (CA now issues tickets for heroin, cocaine, etc., much like it did for marijuana 30 years ago), we will see more DUI’s not less

Perhaps.We have yet to see. Apparently legalizing marijuana in The Netherlands didn't lead to increased impaired driving... So maybe not.
But there will definitely be a lot less money going to Mexican cartels and other organized crime who currently are profiting through illegal traffic in marijuana and other drugs.
And there will be a lot fewer people sitting in jails due to possession convictions.

Fate
But, have Democrats tried to ban cars? Limit the size of alcohol purchases?

I don't know who was in charge, but some US government banned the sale of cars without seat belts...
Here's a list of 30 cars that are banned from US roads because they are too dangerous.
https://www.cheatsheet.com/automobiles/ ... ?a=viewall

Fate
Limit the size of alcohol purchases
?
Yes... Tons of examples.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3712516/
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 13 Mar 2018, 9:43 am

So much nonsense, so little time.

1. Meta data doesn’t help those still being killed and maimed every year. Safety equipment, not “attitudes” is more likely responsible. In 1981, wearing a seatbelt was entirely optional.

2. They’re not isolated incidents. States like CA and MA are very lenient on DUI.

3. The Netherlands? LOL! How many cars per capita there? How many miles driven per capita? I’ll bet that comparison is laughable. (The US has 50% more cars per capita).

4. I’ve never seen/heard a single Democrat say “We have to stop people from stockpiling alcohol.”
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10979
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 13 Mar 2018, 1:43 pm

Fate
1. Meta data doesn’t help those still being killed and maimed every year. Safety equipment, not “attitudes” is more likely responsible. In 1981, wearing a seatbelt was entirely optional.

I've never claimed that improvements in car regulation and attitudes have lead to a perfect world. Only that accidents and particularly injuries and deaths are way down as a result of the regulations and enforcement brought to bear over the decade.
Sensible gun regulation won't eliminate gun deaths either. But there would be a reduction in them over time.

Fate
2.
They’re not isolated incidents. States like CA and MA are very lenient on DUI
.
Here's what you said
If I found someone who recently had a DUI which caused death or injury and had a few prior DUI’s, would that change your mind about how much “change” has actually happened

If you found 1, that would be isolated
If you had evidence of a trend in CA or MA offer it.

Fate
3. The Netherlands? LOL! How many cars per capita there? How many miles driven per capita? I’ll bet that comparison is laughable. (The US has 50% more cars per capita)
.

Your point are moot. The question is, were there more traffic accidents beofre the Netherlands legalized recreational use of drugs, or after.
But since you think the US is so unique, and Americans so unique that only American experience counts...
Here's some information from Washington State.
In this interview, Sheriff John Urquhart of King County, and John Schochet, Deputy City Attorney for Policy and Constituent Affairs from the Seattle City Attorney's Office, share how they think regulation has impacted impaired driving.

A claim we often hear is that cannabis regulation will lead to greater impaired driving. What has your experience of cannabis impaired driving been since legalizing and regulating cannabis markets in Washington State?

Sheriff John Urquhart: The Washington State Patrol's numbers indicate that, despite the legalization of recreational marijuana, driving under the influence (DUI) has not measurably increased. My experience as Sheriff, and the experience of my officers, reflects this. Some people drove impaired on marijuana before legalization, and about the same number will do so after legalization.

John Schochet: Anecdotally, I do think you are getting more people driving under the influence of marijuana. Cannabis legalization does not seem to have increased DUIs overall, though it might be that some cannabis DUIs are substituting for alcohol DUIs. Overall, DUI increases are not an enormous problem when it comes to marijuana legalization, but it could be if left unchecked.


If you have anything that disputes the Sherif or DA, please offer it...


4. I’ve never seen/heard a single Democrat say “We have to stop people from stockpiling alcohol.”

No? Neither have I.
But I offered you a list of regulations that have effectively reduced alcohol consumption. Americas can vote at 18, and buy guns at 18 or even younger. But they can't drink till 21...
All of those regulations have had an effect on DUI....
(If not all the regulation than what, pray tell, do you ascribe to the vast reduction in deaths due to drunk driving accidents ?)
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 13 Mar 2018, 3:39 pm

Ricky, no, alcohol consumption is not declining. Like most everything else you say, you either don’t know what you’re talking about or are lying.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way ... der-adults

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 115604.htm
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6877
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 13 Mar 2018, 3:58 pm

https://www.injurytriallawyer.com/blog/washington-state-dui-statistics-infographic.cfm

Alcohol-involved collisions rose to 8,425 in 2017 in Washington state, up from 7,151 in 2016. There were 10 more fatalities in 2017 than there were in 2016.


Retraction, please.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 10979
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 14 Mar 2018, 6:27 am

http://wtsc.wa.gov/research-data/quarte ... zero-data/

bbauska, if you actually want to do some serious analysis here's the source you need...

According to this the fatalities from impaired driving (drugs or alcohol) were 98 for the first half of 2017. And 277 for the full year in 2016.
Now if I were silly enough to take one data point and attempt to infer a trend from that .... this would be a substantial decline. (Doubling 98 to 196)
For what ever reason...

Since 1995 fatalities in impaired driving accidents in washington state have been between (not including 2017) 333 and 215. There doesn't seem to be much of a trend. If we looked further back to where DUI laws and enforcement began to be stricter (after about 1981) we'll find they are higher. And on a per capita rate, much higher.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6877
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 14 Mar 2018, 7:23 am

http://www.king5.com/article/news/local/investigations/dui-related-deaths-up-as-wa-police-scale-back-enforcement/281-417222771

https://www.npr.org/2015/08/19/432896393/more-washington-drivers-use-and-drive

Since legalization, the Washington state toxicology lab — the group that tests blood samples from DUI cases — says a lot more of samples are positive for marijuana. Three years ago, about 19 percent of the samples contained THC, the key ingredient in pot. This year, that percentage is up to 33 percent.

https://www.drugrehab.com/2017/04/27/drinking-and-driving-a-huge-problem-in-washington-state/

I live in Washington. I just don't look up the stats on the internet to try to make my point. Take a look at the NPR study. That refutes your "one data point" argument.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15953
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 14 Mar 2018, 9:49 am

Doctor Fate wrote:
1. Meta data doesn’t help those still being killed and maimed every year. Safety equipment, not “attitudes” is more likely responsible. In 1981, wearing a seatbelt was entirely optional.
these two sentences appear to be at cross purposes. Seatbelts existed for years before 1981, but the actual change came when "attitudes" altered and politicians changed the law to make their use compulsory. Lives were saved by a combination of equipment, attitudes and law.

Do you at least think that applying similar regulations to guns as you do for cars would help reduce deaths, as it has for driving?
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 6877
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 14 Mar 2018, 10:20 am

I think that there should be some restrictions:
Age 18 (Just like cars)
Basic proficiency (just like cars)
Basic safety devices (just like cars)
No restrictions on type as long as you have the proper license (i.e. a CDL for trucking, motorcycle certification etc.)

You cannot be a convicted felon
You cannot have a restraining order out against you
You cannot have mental defect prohibiting you

If you want to have an AR-15 with Bump stock and extended magazine, go right ahead and apply for the proper license to obtain the semi-automatic firearm.

I know some will say that what about Bazookas (not used anymore) and 50 cal. machine guns. I would say to them that the DMV does not allow tanks to be driven by civilians and that argument is a strawman.