Reporter, Cameraman Shot While On-Air

[gourimoko]

Thanks for clearing things up.

No worries.. always glad to discuss.

I agree that it's sad, and not dissimilar from the way the internet became a great way to share porn (among other things).

I don't really find distribution of porn on the internet as sad. It's an expression of the deepest human desires, and it's perfectly natural in my views.

I think it's actually interesting because this is like the fourth time we've had a discussion like this and I've noticed your own personal tastes tend to bleed into your policy views. By contrast, let me explain my views...

With something like internet porn, I think it's great. It's free expression. People expend money, man-hours of work, etc, to create pornography, and people spend their time consuming it. It's free 99% of the time, and is paid for simply by viewing it.

Now, I break with much of American society in that I view the watching of porn as something of a moral quandary while in a relationship. Now, I say this while also saying that my own personal views have nothing to do with anyone else, and I neither advocate this view or state that it's either correct or incorrect; it's simply my personal view.

But that disconnect I'm demonstrating between my own personal choices and what I think is best for society is something that I don't think you're doing. Instead, again for example, since you wouldn't have sex with Kylie Jenner a month ago, then anyone who would should be imprisoned; or since you don't own any firearms, then anyone who wants to should undergo a psych evaluation; or since you wouldn't ever download a CAD file of a firearm (even for academic purposes), then the government should try to prevent anyone from distributing or downloading said files.

You see the problem with this?

Oh I know that living in a free society means that there are a whole host of things that I disagree with that are protected under the law.

Here's the thing. Disagreeing with something for yourself doesn't mean you disagree with it being legal; I think you're conflating those two concepts.

Example: I am a Catholic. I'm not an atheist, even though many here problem would assume such from my posts. That means I believe abortion is a sin; regardless of your reasoning, because Catholicism doesn't regard a logical form at it's core, but instead a universal command-driven ethics. Therefore, abortion is sinful - period.

Gay marriage... As a Catholic, religiously I cannot endorse marriage between two men in my own church. There is absolutely no basis for such a sacrament in Catholicism; it's expressly forbidden. However, as an American, the opposite is true - there is no basis to limit the freedom of two willing and consenting adults from being married. The paradigms are completely different.

As such, I separate my personal religious beliefs from my ethical understanding of policy that relates to the state. In essence, I'm separating Church and State, as well as personal prejudice and whatever cultural ingrained biases from the rational "real-world" policy platforms I think society should adhere to.

Talking about possible change, however extreme, isn't a bad thing in my opinion though.

It can be if it leads to negative consequences.

That's how the tide finally turned on gay marriage.

Gay marriage with respect to the state was a question of expanding freedom; like universal suffrage, abolition, repealing prohibition, ending the war on drugs, and decriminalizing/legalizing marijuana. All of these questions relate to creating a freer society, not imposing greater restrictions on individuals to create a less free society.

So those debates a fundamentally different than the one you propose, which is a surrendering of specific liberties through burdensome regulation.

I admit, my research on this issue was Wikipedia. That's why I asked you about this originally because you are way more informed on this. Anything about guns in general is about as much gobbledygook to me as half the stuff you talk about with Internet security.

Thanks again for the info.

Again, no worries..

Just keep in mind, I'm always going to operate from the framework of the Constitution and our social contract. When we talk about governments acting on their own to take or give away from the people, that discussion always needs to be in the context of that contract.

That surprises me, but I guess that figure from a purely economic stand point that there will still be plenty of people that are too lazy to finish building a gun on their own and will keep buying from them.

The NRA realizes this type of legislation often acts as a platform for expanded gun controls. The weapon ban you mentioned was the first of it's kind and ultimately led to the Assault Weapons Ban. The slippery slope they spoke of at the time was very real indeed.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Wow, now the outrage is over the News outlets showing the video of the people being murdered on air.

Even though the people questioning the morals of it are the same ones who were showing it all that day.

'Merica.

Kind of like all the folks outraged at the Ashley Madison hack, then searching the data to see if there's anyone they know.

 

[KI4MVP]

3D printing of guns. I saw that before, but didn't remember it until gour's post. Even if it wanted to, the government couldn't shut down access to the files needed to print a gun on a 3D printer that is capable of printing a working gun.

At first I thought this meant that my ideas for licensing wouldn't work. But after giving it more thought I don't think it changes what I hope something like that could accomplish. You could still make it illegal to own a 3D printed gun unless you have passed the gun safety licensing. Until the day comes you can 3D print the bullets for a 3D printed gun, you could always require the same license before a person could buy the bullets.

The goal with my idea are to lower the rate two kinds of gun related deaths. The first is accidental shootings. There are way too many of these. Safety measures could lower that number.

The second is people who are upset then go buy a gun to, shoot someone else, shoot themselves or to do both. Making them spend some time and go through some effort would give at least some of them some time to change their minds.

If this could even reduce 10% of gun related deaths it would be great.

 

[spydy13]

I don't really find distribution of porn on the internet as sad. It's an expression of the deepest human desires, and it's perfectly natural in my views.

I think it's actually interesting because this is like the fourth time we've had a discussion like this and I've noticed your own personal tastes tend to bleed into your policy views. By contrast, let me explain my views...

With something like internet porn, I think it's great. It's free expression. People expend money, man-hours of work, etc, to create pornography, and people spend their time consuming it. It's free 99% of the time, and is paid for simply by viewing it.

Now, I break with much of American society in that I view the watching of porn as something of a moral quandary while in a relationship. Now, I say this while also saying that my own personal views have nothing to do with anyone else, and I neither advocate this view or state that it's either correct or incorrect; it's simply my personal view.

But that disconnect I'm demonstrating between my own personal choices and what I think is best for society is something that I don't think you're doing. Instead, again for example, since you wouldn't have sex with Kylie Jenner a month ago, then anyone who would should be imprisoned; or since you don't own any firearms, then anyone who wants to should undergo a psych evaluation; or since you wouldn't ever download a CAD file of a firearm (even for academic purposes), then the government should try to prevent anyone from distributing or downloading said files.

You see the problem with this?

I never meant to imply that porn was bad, but that's my fault for not explaining myself. I was just saying that I doubt the people that created the Internet thought it would be used so widely to distribute porn, just like I assume the people who came up with 3d printing did not think it would be used to build guns.

Again, not that those are necessarily bad, just not what I assume was the intended purposes of those inventions.

Here's the thing. Disagreeing with something for yourself doesn't mean you disagree with it being legal; I think you're conflating those two concepts.

Example: I am a Catholic. I'm not an atheist, even though many here problem would assume such from my posts. That means I believe abortion is a sin; regardless of your reasoning, because Catholicism doesn't regard a logical form at it's core, but instead a universal command-driven ethics. Therefore, abortion is sinful - period.

Gay marriage... As a Catholic, religiously I cannot endorse marriage between two men in my own church. There is absolutely no basis for such a sacrament in Catholicism; it's expressly forbidden. However, as an American, the opposite is true - there is no basis to limit the freedom of two willing and consenting adults from being married. The paradigms are completely different.

As such, I separate my personal religious beliefs from my ethical understanding of policy that relates to the state. In essence, I'm separating Church and State, as well as personal prejudice and whatever cultural ingrained biases from the rational "real-world" policy platforms I think society should adhere to.

There are plenty of things that I disagree with that I don't think should be illegal. I would never smoke pot or do drugs, but I think them being illegal clearly isn't working and is imprisoning millions of people for non-violent offenses. I'm not sure if the death penalty really brings healing to anyone, but I don't think it should be taken off the table as long as it's done in as a humane a way as possible. I'm really not sure if I would be okay with aborting a child of my own, but I don't it should be made illegal in all situations.

I hope you don't think I'm that dumb. We just happen to have run into a few cases in a row in which we disagree on the ideas I've proposed, although stat rape laws aren't anything I've come up with and obviously if the people of the states that have agreed to age of consent laws at 16 then there is not a whole lot I can do despite my disagreement on people that young being fully ready to deal with sex.

The two gun related ideas are obviously more problematic, but I make no pretensions of being a politician. We're just talking on a forum, not the floor of the senate. So my ideas may be more of a reflection on my personal beliefs on what's best for our society, but I don't think these ideas are going to pass through a legislative body.

I mean let's be real. We can talk about how we have to fix social issues to really solve the problems of crime, but you know that's not going to happen. We can't even do the slam dunk stuff anymore, let anyone huge problems like affordable education, creating jobs that can pay living wages, etc. We tried to make healthcare more affordable and we ended up with a big pile of shit.

So I apologize if my attempts to grasp at straws in light of the latest senseless killing may not have been well crafted political arguments. I was just trying to vent and maybe find some sort of targeted answer to one of the many ridiculous problems we face.

Just keep in mind, I'm always going to operate from the framework of the Constitution and our social contract. When we talk about governments acting on their own to take or give away from the people, that discussion always needs to be in the context of that contract.

I'll keep that in mind and figured as such. I'm more of the Jefferson state of mind that we shouldn't be ruled by the laws of our forefathers if they no longer work for us.

The NRA realizes this type of legislation often acts as a platform for expanded gun controls. The weapon ban you mentioned was the first of it's kind and ultimately led to the Assault Weapons Ban. The slippery slope they spoke of at the time was very real indeed.

That makes sense.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Until the day comes you can 3D print the bullets for a 3D printed gun, you could always require the same license before a person could buy the bullets.

Fair point. If you really wanted to get "guns" out of civilian hands, the most effectively way is to shut down ammo

 

[Otsego Mar]

Fair point. If you really wanted to get "guns" out of civilian hands, the most effectively way is to shut down ammo

And they've already been trying to do just that.

People can make their own ammo....it's relatively easy.

 

[Frank Reynolds]

You guys are bat shit fucking crazy. You simply cannot comprehend how many guns are in circulation, because if you could; you would stop with this utopian thinking.

"I wish all people were kind, I wish nobody would steal, I wish that no drunk would ever crash cars, I wish that our politicians would all become honest."

That's what I hear.

It's like hearing "maybe we'll do away with growing corn, and maybe motorcycle riders will stop wearing leather."



Let me ask you this? How many people have been murdered by 3d printed weapons? None, last time I checked.

If someone wants to kill someone with a gun, they are not going to make/download a CAD file and wait 24 hours to print one part out, then worry about reliability, accuracy, etc. So here comes the simpleton logic: "well, let's just limit their access to firearms!"

Well lets limit their access to marijuana too! I'm sure they won't be able to acquire that stuff if it's prohibited!

Guns are analogous to pornography in that there's so much of it we can't keep track of it all, and people are NEVER going to relinquish what they already have.



Some of you people don't even understand how many guns are unaccounted for. Mar is right, people make ammunition all the time. Are you going to impose tariffs on brass? Are you going to monitor every speckle of gunpowder? People will make that stuff from scratch, they did it long before we had 3d printers. It's not like we've burned the recipes for powder and it's impossible to make.

People who try to think of these ideas, it's very noble of you but nothing you can dream up will have a significant effect on this problem; because you can't significantly change society from where it now resides.

You point directly to the implement, and not to the person. There's been plenty of people who would pass this miracle "psychoanalysis" on on the day of purchase for a firearm and suddenly go off the rocker weeks/months/years later.

So the person acquires the weapon legally, passes all psychology evaluations, it's just that 20 years later they still have a perfectly working firearm, and they decide that life ins't worth living anymore. Maybe they can take some other people out, maybe someone has wronged them, maybe there's deep seated jealousy, family problems, work problems etc.


Every time this issue is brought up, we always try to control the HOW
-How do people purchase guns?
-How do people register their weapons?
-How do people acquire unregistered weapons?
-How can we limit ammunition?
-How can we.......

How can we stop the gunman? You need to stop asking how, and start asking WHY?

The only problem with this is you likely will never find the answer, and if you start letting the government pry and investigate the WHY? you will never get a clear answer and a fuck ton of money will be burned up trying to do so.

For elected politicians, they need to do SOMETHING tangible that shows their constituents HOW we plan to solve the problem. They need to demonstrate action to get re-elected and stay in the public's good graces.


The politicians know this is a ridiculously complex issue, where there's no clear path to solving this problem.

What can we do to solve world hunger?

What can we get teenagers to stop sexting and looking at porn? Can it ever be completely eradicated?

How can we stop people from ingesting marijuana? Can it ever be completely eradicated?


Better yet, have any of their attempts shown tangible progress towards limiting/removing those problems? No.

As far as I know, all of those things are still as prevalent as they've always been.

How many resources have we spent trying to stop/limit those things? We're applying a bandaid on a land mine wound.


My whole ideology is don't start letting the government tell you how to live your life. They aren't pumping the brakes on fast food, cigarettes, or alcohol. Meanwhile they burn through ridiculous sums of money in vain; and no true progress is ever attained. These are the people you want solving the problem?

It goes back to this quote "It takes one person to birth a baby, and it takes a whole village to raise a child." When our social patterns changed, and people now lock their doors and don't even know their next-door neighbors; shit changed, for the worst.

 

[KI4MVP]

You guys are bat shit fucking crazy. You simply cannot comprehend how many guns are in circulation, because if you could; you would stop with this utopian thinking.

I'm not talking about eliminating anything, I'm just talking about making some adjustments that would save some lives.

We do a similar thing with issues like car safety. We don't attempt to eliminate all car fatalities, but we do progressively make things a bit safer and save some lives along the way.

It's certainly impossible to stop all gun deaths, but it's also certainly possible to save some lives. The shooting instructor who was accidentally killed last year when a 9 year old girl was given an Uzi to shoot with is an example of a death that easily could have easily been prevented.

3D printing comes up not because of what has or hasn't happened to date with 3d printed weapons, but rather the reality that 3D printing will only improve.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

And they've already been trying to do just that.

People can make their own ammo....it's relatively easy.

Reloading ammo is relatively easy. Manufacturimg (as opposed to buying) your own primers and propellants is a bit more difficult.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

This reminds me of one thing that always bugs me about this topic. You'll have pro-gun control folks who will absolutely ridicule the idea that anyone actually wants to take guns away from law abiding citizens.

But the truth is that there are a fair number of those people, and the only reason you don't see more pols pushing it publicly is because of the perception that it would hurt them at the ballot box. But the moment they think there's a sufficiemt tide of public opinoon, they'll flip in a heartbeat. Just like what happened with gay marriage, where huge numbers of pols flipped positions virtually overnight.

So out of one side of their mouth, they'll make fun of gun owners who buy large quantities of ammo. But catch them at a different time, with a different crowd, and they'll be supporting the idea of going after the ammo.