A Sane Discussion About Gun Violence

[carpedm9587]

It's no longer necessary in the field I'm in - but nobody can take away my knowledge gained! (except time )

That much is true! Unfortunately, a chuunk of that knowledge is now seriously out of date, and no longer applicable. I keep hitting that wall all the time.

[carpedm9587]

Figgered.

Gotcha...

[carpedm9587]

Actually, not such a good analogy.

The CCNA is not "required" to operate in the field - in most industries, once you're in, you're in. It's often just a "foot in the door" kind of thing. Or, if you can demonstrate proficiency without the CCNA - like I did - it's not even a "foot in the door" thing.

On the other hand, if you drive a motor vehicle on public roads, you are, indeed, required to have a current license.

I actually hate it when your right

[carpedm9587]

Actually, not such a good analogy.

The CCNA is not "required" to operate in the field - in most industries, once you're in, you're in. It's often just a "foot in the door" kind of thing. Or, if you can demonstrate proficiency without the CCNA - like I did - it's not even a "foot in the door" thing.

On the other hand, if you drive a motor vehicle on public roads, you are, indeed, required to have a current license.

I put that "your" there on purpose too!

[Cow Poke]

I put that "your" there on purpose too!

And, yeah, AGAIN, "I figgered".

[demi-conservative]

I cannot support anything without data. My gut tells me "fewer guns - less gun violence." My gut tells me "lower capacity magazines, less harm done." My gut tells me "eliminate all automatic and semi-automatic weapons, less harm done." but my gut has been wrong on more than one occasion. We need the studies - but we cannot get them in the current climate - so I am left...somewhat rudderless.

So while waiting for studies, go back to preaching of white privilege? Maybe move out of 100% white neighborhood too, mr rich 1%!!!

[Cow Poke]

That much is true! Unfortunately, a chuunk of that knowledge is now seriously out of date, and no longer applicable. I keep hitting that wall all the time.

True, and I came to a point where I got tired trying to keep up, and was moving out of the IT field anyway, so.... I'll leave that to younger guys.

[carpedm9587]

You can't know that. Even if the grandfather had had a safe, it's possible they could have found the combination written down somewhere, or conned him into showing the guns to them --- you really can't say "never would have succeeded" just on the basis that the grandfather 'hadn't bothered to get a gun safe'.

"Due diligence" does not mean "immune to compromise." If a grandfather leaves loaded guns out on the coffee table, it is clear they have not shown "due diligence." If they have the guns in a gun safe and post the combination on the fridge, they have not done "due diligence." If they put the guns in a gun safe, write the combination on a piece of paper that they keep in their wallet, and a kid sneaks in and steals the wallet - we're in gray territory. If they lock the guns in a gun safe and the kid uses a jackhammer they rented from the local rental to break the safe, the grandfather has shown "due diligence" and is not culpable.

The idea is to make a "reasonable effort" to secure the firearms. If you have not done that, then you are culpavble. As with all laws, "reasonable" will be clearly absent in some case, clearly present in others, and hard to sort out in still others. That's how a legal system like ours works.

[carpedm9587]

Let's not get hasty and leap to conclusions.

Good point...


P.S. I've been jumping on "stupid" and "dumb" because I don't want this thread to degrade into the ad homs this discussion so often leads to. But this is meant humorously, and CP actually IS pretty dumb... so it's OK...

[Cow Poke]

Umm...you're taking an extreme case to make a general argument - it doesn't work, IMO. The vast majority of the population cannot reload at this kind of speed.

True - but the 'active shooter' is not "the vast majority of the population', and is at the center of this debate. He/she would be a fool not to become proficient with their weapon of choice.

So if the magazine holds 8 rounds instead of 15 rounds - THIS shooter won't be significantly impacted - but the vast majority of shooters will be.

And, again, the 'active shooter' isn't the "vast majority".

It's an obstacle that helps to reduce the carnage, without significantly impacting gun owners, except for the inconvenience of having to swap magazines more frequently. So we're talking convenience versus lives. To me - that's a no brainer.

It might slow down the "average person", but it won't do squat to the sufficiently motivated active shooter in a gun-free zone. It's simply a "feel good" measure.

[carpedm9587]

Interesting. Back in the 50s and 60s Gallup polls showed that half or more Americans were all for banning handguns (peaking at 60% in 1959) but that has dropped down into the 20s today.

There is a Quinnipiac University poll showing that around two-thirds of respondents said they favored banning "assault rifles." Of course "assault rifles" are heavily regulated and for all practical purposes already banned. It's what happens when folks ignorant about firearms concoct a half-ass poll.

We shall see...

[carpedm9587]

The fact that a firearm can be used without ever shooting someone or even firing it, always seems to be ignored by those who make this statement.

You should read the rest of the post...

[Cow Poke]

"Due diligence" does not mean "immune to compromise." If a grandfather leaves loaded guns out on the coffee table, it is clear they have not shown "due diligence." If they have the guns in a gun safe and post the combination on the fridge, they have not done "due diligence." If they put the guns in a gun safe, write the combination on a piece of paper that they keep in their wallet, and a kid sneaks in and steals the wallet - we're in gray territory. If they lock the guns in a gun safe and the kid uses a jackhammer they rented from the local rental to break the safe, the grandfather has shown "due diligence" and is not culpable.

The idea is to make a "reasonable effort" to secure the firearms. If you have not done that, then you are culpavble. As with all laws, "reasonable" will be clearly absent in some case, clearly present in others, and hard to sort out in still others. That's how a legal system like ours works.

I have bolded the part of Teal's statement to which I was responding....

He who is negligent - or shows depraved indifference - should pay for their disregard for the safety of others. Had that principle been in effect in Arkansas, the two boys who ambushed their classmates would never have succeeded - they got their guns from their grandfather who hadn't bothered to get a gun safe. They could not access their own guns or their father's which were in his gun safe.

To which I replied....

You can't know that.

None of what you typed changes the fact that you can't know that "Had that principle been in effect in Arkansas, the two boys who ambushed their classmates would never have succeeded".

[carpedm9587]

I have bolded the part of Teal's statement to which I was responding....

To which I replied....

None of what you typed changes the fact that you can't know that "Had that principle been in effect in Arkansas, the two boys who ambushed their classmates would never have succeeded".

I agree with the absolute. However, their chance of success would have been reduced, perhaps significantly. True?

[carpedm9587]

And, yeah, AGAIN, "I figgered".

Darned! I hoped to get you twice in a row...