Go Back  

All Out WAR Between Chris Dorner and Cops 

Current Rating:

Join NowJoin Now
 
  #21  
Old 02-14-2013, 08:16 PM
pbaj12's Avatar
pbaj12
Offline:
Captain of a Sinking Ship
Poster Rank:887
Join Date: Jan 2012
Contributions: 14
 
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Quoted: 49 Post(s)
Activity Longevity
2/20 10/20
Today Posts
2/11 ssssss524
Re: All Out WAR Between Chris Dorner and Cops

Which ones? Again, I'm not advocating a Feinstein ban, but this NRA plan of 'let's fight every suggestion is bullshit'

They are making laws that affect the wrong people. Most gun owners are responsible and wouldn't go on a shooting spree so they feel they shouldn't be restricted.

I see your point, but if someone can't cool down in a week, I don't think a month will have that much more of a dramatic effect. Besides, I'd be willing to bet anyone unhinged enough to seriously consider blasting co-workers already has guns at his/her disposal.

If it has any effect it's something to consider. There's no reason someone needs to have a gun the same day or even in a week. You can always do something like for the first 3 guns they have to wait a month then after that there's a shorter wait.

You're kidding right? Tell me, have you ever given references for a job? How many do you think fucked you over? References would be almost pointless. All background checks should be as in-depth as possible.

I agree with background checks but sometimes things are overlooked and need a second look. Take the story about the mother telling the police she thought her son might go on a shooting spree. It might be one of those things the person wouldn't dream a reference would say anything bad about them..but they could.

Again, this should be up to the parents. If a school decided to teach my kid, if I had one, about guns without my permission, i'd be pissed. Kids bringing guns to school is an entirely different issue and all the training in the world won't fix the underlying reason kids do that. Schools need to implement zero tolerance for bullying and consider anger management if possible, but if a kid gets a hold of a firearm, the adult owner should be 100% liable for it. There's simply no excuse for it.

You could work out the terms of it but I think it would help if it was at least offered. Thank you, I agree with the bullying zero tolerance.

Far too expensive and cumbersome a plan to operate and it's unrealistic as I mentioned previously. Work for it? Many have to now as part of their welfare and almost every state has lifetime limits on how long one can be on welfare. And while there are obvious abuses to the system, the number isn't close to what many people think it is. But none of this does a damn thing to address gun crime or killings.

I look at it like who has the greater chance of committing a crime. Someone who's in good health, has a place to stay and food to eat or someone who is in bad health, homeless and starving. Even if you don't think it's something for crime, it's a moral issue too.

I don't mind the idea of cops/or HIGHLY trained & certified guards, but people will want to do this on the cheap and that blows the whole idea. I believe the secured classroom is a far better, and in the long run cheaper, idea.

There's so much financial waste that could be reallocated but that's another story.

The problem with the remodel or even the new school idea is MONEY. No one wants to spend anything and the right wingnuts believe the gub'mint wants their guns outta the cold, dead hands.

So we're at a stalemate. People continue to die everyday. we can ever get congress to approve money to reinforce thousands of bridges in danger of collapse, but we're gonna get the money to retrofit schools?

Uh-huh, tell me again how we're doing 'something'

Yeah there's a lot of careless spending. I would do a lot of things differently and to address the problems that is what needs to be done but we all know that isn't going to happen. So unfortunately these solutions are only going to go as far as here.

Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 02-14-2013, 08:39 PM
Broadjumper's Avatar
Broadjumper
Offline:
My Rank: SECOND LIEUTENANT
Poster Rank:188
Male
Join Date: Aug 2009
 
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Quoted: 1182 Post(s)
Activity Longevity
3/20 15/20
Today Posts
0/11 sssss5092
Re: All Out WAR Between Chris Dorner and Cops

"They are making laws that affect the wrong people. Most gun owners are responsible and wouldn't go on a shooting spree so they feel they shouldn't be restricted."

Says who? Yes, I agree that MOST gun owners are responsible, but As i just posted, NONE of these recent mass-shooters were 'criminals' with records, Chris Dorner wan't a 'criminal', was he? The fact is that one never knows when one of these so-called 'responsible gun-owners' are either gonna snap or let someone else have access to deadly weapons. There are responsible steps that can be taken even if the gun crowd whines about not being able to buy 30 round magazines anymore.

"If it has any effect it's something to consider. There's no reason someone needs to have a gun the same day or even in a week. You can always do something like for the first 3 guns they have to wait a month then after that there's a shorter wait."

There's NO reason? Not even for home-safety? Look, I'm all for making sane choices when it comes to arms legislation, but this one isn't. In act, it's fairly obvious that many of these killings were meticulously planned, so a month wouldn't have been a deterrent to their plan.

"I agree with background checks but sometimes things are overlooked and need a second look. Take the story about the mother telling the police she thought her son might go on a shooting spree. It might be one of those things the person wouldn't dream a reference would say anything bad about them..but they could."


Fine, but then tell me WHO gets to decide who's used a reference? What if this guy knew his mother thought he was a shit bag? Point here is that you'd use favorable references and this would catch few if any problems. It could actually cause legal problems for many.

"You could work out the terms of it but I think it would help if it was at least offered. Thank you, I agree with the bullying zero tolerance."

Frankly, I think we already expose kids to too much violence and give them things to fear..why can't we just let kids be kids? I might support this at a more mature level, but not primary schools.

"I look at it like who has the greater chance of committing a crime. Someone who's in good health, has a place to stay and food to eat or someone who is in bad health, homeless and starving. Even if you don't think it's something for crime, it's a moral issue too."

I don't disagree with your intention, I'm merely commenting on the likelihood of it getting any political support. Many already feel the disadvantaged get too much 'free stuff' already, even if it's not all that free.

"There's so much financial waste that could be reallocated but that's another story."

Could be and will be are light years apart.

"Yeah there's a lot of careless spending. I would do a lot of things differently and to address the problems that is what needs to be done but we all know that isn't going to happen. So unfortunately these solutions are only going to go as far as here."

You're probably right, but remember this. I think we've hit that tipping point and if another school massacre occurs, I think Wayne LaPierre better go into hiding because people will start looking to lynch him. I think most people are finally getting tired of yahoos with their guns and their Rambo fixations...

Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 02-14-2013, 09:25 PM
pbaj12's Avatar
pbaj12
Offline:
Captain of a Sinking Ship
Poster Rank:887
Join Date: Jan 2012
Contributions: 14
 
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Quoted: 49 Post(s)
Activity Longevity
2/20 10/20
Today Posts
2/11 ssssss524
Re: All Out WAR Between Chris Dorner and Cops

There's NO reason? Not even for home-safety? Look, I'm all for making sane choices when it comes to arms legislation, but this one isn't. In act, it's fairly obvious that many of these killings were meticulously planned, so a month wouldn't have been a deterrent to their plan.

If you're getting a weapon for home safety why would you need it right away?
Not all killings are planned, some are spur of the moment.
Would a 30 day wait period help or hurt people more?
What's a reasonable amount of time it would take for an in-depth background check? If safety classes were required to own a gun, wouldn't 30 days allow them enough time to be taken?


Fine, but then tell me WHO gets to decide who's used a reference? What if this guy knew his mother thought he was a shit bag? Point here is that you'd use favorable references and this would catch few if any problems. It could actually cause legal problems for many.

I think you're over complicating what I'm saying. The references wouldn't be a decided factor but they may help in some cases where there were things that wouldn't show up in a background check. They would just be 5 people that know the person. You could just have the person sign an agreement that says that can't sue a person for their opinion.

Frankly, I think we already expose kids to too much violence and give them things to fear..why can't we just let kids be kids? I might support this at a more mature level, but not primary schools.

I'm not talking about exposing them to crime scenes or anything when they're 6 years old.
Let's say the school has a cop and paramedic go on stage. The cop talks about how guns can be dangerous and should only be used with a parent. If you see one in the open, don't touch it and tell an adult. Then have the paramedic say something about how playing with guns even if they aren't trying to hurt anyone could lead them to losing a friend or loved one. Obviously you would need a better presentation but something along those lines.


I don't disagree with your intention, I'm merely commenting on the likelihood of it getting any political support. Many already feel the disadvantaged get too much 'free stuff' already, even if it's not all that free.

I know there's no way of it getting passed, just something to consider.

You're probably right, but remember this. I think we've hit that tipping point and if another school massacre occurs, I think Wayne LaPierre better go into hiding because people will start looking to lynch him. I think most people are finally getting tired of yahoos with their guns and their Rambo fixations...

Gun violence has been here for a long time and there have been higher rates of crime from it. It just seems like the media is pushing their agenda and more people care because of that.

Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 02-14-2013, 10:29 PM
Broadjumper's Avatar
Broadjumper
Offline:
My Rank: SECOND LIEUTENANT
Poster Rank:188
Male
Join Date: Aug 2009
 
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Quoted: 1182 Post(s)
Activity Longevity
3/20 15/20
Today Posts
0/11 sssss5092
Re: All Out WAR Between Chris Dorner and Cops

"If you're getting a weapon for home safety why would you need it right away?
Not all killings are planned, some are spur of the moment.
Would a 30 day wait period help or hurt people more?"

What's a reasonable amount of time it would take for an in-depth background check? If safety classes were required to own a gun, wouldn't 30 days allow them enough time to be taken?


Gee, I dunno. Say I've been getting threatening calls from an ex, say there's been a rash of break-ins or shootings or assaults in my neighborhood and...I should wait 30 days before I can have access to a firearm for my protection? absurd

A criminal background check should take that long, Christ, I can get a credit report in what, a DAY? The point here is that in an age of computers, such information should be easily obtains and could be as long as states are compelled to update the database and the process is funded. Know how we do that? Add a surcharge to every gun, gun accessory or box of ammo sold...

Unfortunately, guns safety classes AREN'T required, but even if they were, are you saying that even second-time or multiple-time owners would still need to attend a safety class? If this si such a great idea, why don't we ask everyone who buys a second care to take a second safety test?

Of course not all killings are planned, but not all killings are by gun either. 30 days isn't going to make a difference and I could always hit a gun show (under current laws) and have ZERO waiting period. The issue here is the '30' days is capricious, there's no proof that a 30 day period would be any more or less effective than a 7 day (provided background databases are effectively updated), it's punitive and as I've stated, could keep someone from adequately defending themselves in their own home.

"I think you're over complicating what I'm saying. The references wouldn't be a decided factor but they may help in some cases where there were things that wouldn't show up in a background check. They would just be 5 people that know the person. You could just have the person sign an agreement that says that can't sue a person for their opinion".

Not at all. First off, you need to define who gets to select who gives these references. Secondly, not everyone would necessarily want to be involved. Then there's the issue of who's job is it to check these references? You've just created a huge new bureaucracy...and sorry, I just don't think anyone would agree to sign a document absolving someone from statements they might make that could be potentially slanderous. That's why when businesses give employee references these days, they stick with dates of employments, titles, salaries, etc. but very little editorializing...

"I'm not talking about exposing them to crime scenes or anything when they're 6 years old.
Let's say the school has a cop and paramedic go on stage. The cop talks about how guns can be dangerous and should only be used with a parent. If you see one in the open, don't touch it and tell an adult. Then have the paramedic say something about how playing with guns even if they aren't trying to hurt anyone could lead them to losing a friend or loved one. Obviously you would need a better presentation but something along those lines."


I don't mind cops, firemen, EMT's etc, talking with kids about their careers in general terms but I DON'T agree with cops playing 'show and tell' with guns with the exception of saying that guns aren't toys, never pick one up unless supervised by YOUR PARENT and if you see one unattended, tell an adult. That's about all the average kid needs to know. If that's what you're saying we're on the same page.

"Gun violence has been here for a long time and there have been higher rates of crime from it. It just seems like the media is pushing their agenda and more people care because of that."

The media IS pushing it! So what? I'm amazed that people get offended by the idea that reporting on what is essentially major crisis in this country is bad "'cuz de gub'mint gonna take our gunzzz!" That's utterly fucking absurd. We have the highest death rate by firearm of any developed nation in the world, but we're so fucking afraid of the 'government bogeyman' that anytime anyone suggests a few ideas that might help cut down on the death toll, the NRA gins up fear and everyone screams that the gun confiscators are comin' to a door near you...

Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 02-14-2013, 11:08 PM
Brometheus's Avatar
Brometheus
Offline:
★ Server Supporter ★
Poster Rank:287
Join Date: Feb 2011
Contributions: 18
 
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Quoted: 131 Post(s)
Activity Longevity
0/20 12/20
Today Posts
0/11 sssss2865
Re: All Out WAR Between Chris Dorner and Cops

CCCCCCCOMBO BREAKER.. this thread should be renamed All Out War Between Broadjumper and pbaj12. these 2 guys should run for president..




carry on.

Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Brometheus For This Useful Post:
Broadjumper, pbaj12
  #26  
Old 02-14-2013, 11:12 PM
pbaj12's Avatar
pbaj12
Offline:
Captain of a Sinking Ship
Poster Rank:887
Join Date: Jan 2012
Contributions: 14
 
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Quoted: 49 Post(s)
Activity Longevity
2/20 10/20
Today Posts
2/11 ssssss524
Re: All Out WAR Between Chris Dorner and Cops

Gee, I dunno. Say I've been getting threatening calls from an ex, say there's been a rash of break-ins or shootings or assaults in my neighborhood and...I should wait 30 days before I can have access to a firearm for my protection? absurd

Since we're just throwing around ideas, there could be an exemption for cases like that where there are documented reasons to need a firearm immediately; however, I would still want those exempt from the wait time to be capable of using the weapon.

A criminal background check should take that long, Christ, I can get a credit report in what, a DAY? The point here is that in an age of computers, such information should be easily obtains and could be as long as states are compelled to update the database and the process is funded. Know how we do that? Add a surcharge to every gun, gun accessory or box of ammo sold...

I'm not saying a background check takes that long but 30 days is more than enough time and it would allow the person time to take classes (if that was part of the law).

Unfortunately, guns safety classes AREN'T required, but even if they were, are you saying that even second-time or multiple-time owners would still need to attend a safety class? If this si such a great idea, why don't we ask everyone who buys a second care to take a second safety test?

The safety class would be good for say 5 years and then you would need to take a refresher course/test the next time you buy a weapon after the 5 year mark. Anytime a person is buying a weapon basic things need to be shown the person is capable of doing after instruction: how to unload/load, field strip, safety, etc. before giving they can take the gun.

Of course not all killings are planned, but not all killings are by gun either. 30 days isn't going to make a difference and I could always hit a gun show (under current laws) and have ZERO waiting period. The issue here is the '30' days is capricious, there's no proof that a 30 day period would be any more or less effective than a 7 day (provided background databases are effectively updated), it's punitive and as I've stated, could keep someone from adequately defending themselves in their own home.

As I said above there could be exemptions for some one the requires it sooner. But why would the average person need it sooner than 30 days?

"I think you're over complicating what I'm saying. The references wouldn't be a decided factor but they may help in some cases where there were things that wouldn't show up in a background check. They would just be 5 people that know the person. You could just have the person sign an agreement that says that can't sue a person for their opinion".

Not at all. First off, you need to define who gets to select who gives these references. Secondly, not everyone would necessarily want to be involved. Then there's the issue of who's job is it to check these references? You've just created a huge new bureaucracy...and sorry, I just don't think anyone would agree to sign a document absolving someone from statements they might make that could be potentially slanderous. That's why when businesses give employee references these days, they stick with dates of employments, titles, salaries, etc. but very little editorializing...

Like I said these people wouldn't be a decided factor, just extra information.
"List 5 people and their numbers". Someone calls these 5 people saying, "Hi, so and so is purchasing a gun...do you have any reasons why they shouldn't possess one?" I'm sure most would say no, they are okay to have a gun. Quick and easy. But what if a reference said, "Yes, so and so was making threats to his neighbor the other day that he was going to come over there and kill him when he's gets his gun." I think that's something worth checking into.
Again not a deciding factor...


The media IS pushing it! So what? I'm amazed that people get offended by the idea that reporting on what is essentially major crisis in this country is bad "'cuz de gub'mint gonna take our gunzzz!" That's utterly fucking absurd. We have the highest death rate by firearm of any developed nation in the world, but we're so fucking afraid of the 'government bogeyman' that anytime anyone suggests a few ideas that might help cut down on the death toll, the NRA gins up fear and everyone screams that the gun confiscators are comin' to a door near you...

I have nothing wrong with them reporting on things but when they try to make every gun owner seem like a villain with a big black rifle causing death and destruction in every direction it's pointed...then hoping these people act in the moment to restrict the use of my guns that would never be used in a mass shooting.. That's what I'm offended by.

Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 02-14-2013, 11:47 PM
Broadjumper's Avatar
Broadjumper
Offline:
My Rank: SECOND LIEUTENANT
Poster Rank:188
Male
Join Date: Aug 2009
 
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Quoted: 1182 Post(s)
Activity Longevity
3/20 15/20
Today Posts
0/11 sssss5092
Re: All Out WAR Between Chris Dorner and Cops

"Since we're just throwing around ideas, there could be an exemption for cases like that where there are documented reasons to need a firearm immediately; however, I would still want those exempt from the wait time to be capable of using the weapon."

Total cop out. If you did that, they you create a whole other set of issues like who gets to decide it and what happens if they fuck up? Nope, sorry, 30 days, oh you got killed? My bad. Your time-frame is 100% random & capricious.

"I'm not saying a background check takes that long but 30 days is more than enough time and it would allow the person time to take classes (if that was part of the law)."

If they don't take that long and there's no requirement for gun safety courses (there's not), then 30 days is pointless, it just makes YOU feel better.

"The safety class would be good for say 5 years and then you would need to take a refresher course/test the next time you buy a weapon after the 5 year mark. Anytime a person is buying a weapon basic things need to be shown the person is capable of doing after instruction: how to unload/load, field strip, safety, etc. before giving they can take the gun."

I'm not sayin' it's a decent idea, just somewhat random and can't be evenly enforced, hell they can't even require dealers to keep a written inventory, but they're gonna make sure everyone renews their gun safety cert? I also don't think you'd have a prayer of a chance to get it passed. I'm not here trying to discuss fantasy or perfect-world, but more about changes that have a real possibility.

"As I said above there could be exemptions for some one the requires it sooner. But why would the average person need it sooner than 30 days?"

As I said, the exception idea is just more red tape and it puts others in the position of making decisions they may not take seriously enough and could lead to even more problems. As to why, what business is that of yours OR mine. What if I wanna take a hunting trip? What if I want to go target shooting, etc., etc. Who's business is it to judge the reasons of anyone else just of the oft chance that some crackpot wants to kill someone he's pissed at?

"Like I said these people wouldn't be a decided factor, just extra information.
"List 5 people and their numbers". Someone calls these 5 people saying, "Hi, so and so is purchasing a gun...do you have any reasons why they shouldn't possess one?" I'm sure most would say no, they are okay to have a gun. Quick and easy. But what if a reference said, "Yes, so and so was making threats to his neighbor the other day that he was going to come over there and kill him when he's gets his gun." I think that's something worth checking into. Again not a deciding factor..."


Geez! What you're describing sounds like nothing more that busywork..real feel-good window dressing to make people think they're doing something to make the public safer. Like I said, if you're giving the references, you'll pick people whom you get along with or that you've asked in advance, it's POINTLESS. And you still haven't addressed the COST of the bureaucracy you just created to make phone calls? You keep chasing your tale over an obviously bad idea.

"I have nothing wrong with them reporting on things but when they try to make every gun owner seem like a villain with a big black rifle causing death and destruction in every direction it's pointed...then hoping these people act in the moment to restrict the use of my guns that would never be used in a mass shooting.. That's what I'm offended by."


Then either you're way too fucking sensitive or read nothing but ultra-left wing blogs, because I haven't seen a single media report that tries to make ALL gun owners look like villains, just those who won't support checks or even consider mag-cap reductions or secure their weapons. Seriously, there's NO excuse for getting a gin stolen out of your home. They HAVE tried to make the NRA & Wayne LaPierre out to be one, but he actually IS one. He's got his own agenda and it's NOT to give a shit about gun owners or NRA members (who actually want some sensible measures) but to lobby on behalf of gun manufacturers!

Yeah, you have rights, no doubt. So do people who simply want to send heir kids to school, go see a movie or not have to worry about some disgruntled asshole with an AR-15 and a Glock with extended magazines...

Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Broadjumper For This Useful Post:
pbaj12
  #28  
Old 02-15-2013, 12:44 AM
pbaj12's Avatar
pbaj12
Offline:
Captain of a Sinking Ship
Poster Rank:887
Join Date: Jan 2012
Contributions: 14
 
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Quoted: 49 Post(s)
Activity Longevity
2/20 10/20
Today Posts
2/11 ssssss524
Re: All Out WAR Between Chris Dorner and Cops

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree at this point. Good points

Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to pbaj12 For This Useful Post:
Broadjumper, Brometheus
  #29  
Old 02-17-2013, 09:34 AM
kellyhound's Avatar
kellyhound
Offline:
✝Moderator from Hell✝
Poster Rank:9
e-mail
Join Date: Oct 2006
Contributions: 413
 
Mentioned: 82 Post(s)
Quoted: 1760 Post(s)
Activity Longevity
14/20 20/20
Today Posts
11/11 ssss61202
Re: All Out WAR Between Chris Dorner and Cops

damn, that's a lot of firepower they used.

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 02-17-2013, 10:40 AM
AmericanIllusions's Avatar
My Rank: FIRST SERGEANT
Poster Rank:276
Join Date: Oct 2009
 
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 103 Post(s)
Activity Longevity
0/20 14/20
Today Posts
1/11 sssss3029
Re: All Out WAR Between Chris Dorner and Cops

Quote:
Originally Posted by kellyhound View Post
damn, that's a lot of firepower they used.
Yup and didn't hit a gotdamn thing either. For all we know the guy could have already been dead from a self inflicted wound and these guys are just filming for propaganda. The media is strange like that. We don't know what's real.

Reply With Quote

Powered by vBulletin Copyright 2000-2010 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO