Reporter and Cameraman Murdered on Live TV

[BVS]

So that would be a no.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Bluer White

Well, I'm nominally familiar with Mr. Flanagan's employment record, and very familiar with the manifesto fax he sent out explaining his act.

did he murder these two people on the basis of their ethnicity or sexual orientation and thusly send a signal to other members of these groups that they were under attack?

certainly, his long list of grievances had racial and sexual components, and he seemed particularly upset by the Charleston shooting (he legally purchased a gun 2 days afterwards). but it's this complexity, combined with his work-related complaints, that make this a classic workplace shooting perpetrated by a delusional individual who lives in a state that enables easy access to deadly weapons. he hated his co-workers, he hated what he perceived as slights on the basis of his race and sexual orientation. but he did not kill the two simply because they were 1) white, and 2) straight. very different than the Charleston shooting.

i have some intellectual issues with hate crimes in general, but there's a pretty clear standard when it comes to their defintion.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Bluer White

You hafta to respect a straight theft LOL

what terms would you describe the steps the UK and Australia took in the wake of Dunblane and Port Arthur?

[LemonMelon]

Prior to their "gun ban," did every Australian feel entitled to their own personal armory purely because of where they were born? Because that might have contributed to the ease of their buyback.

[Bluer White]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

what terms would you describe the steps the UK and Australia took in the wake of Dunblane and Port Arthur?

Mandatory buybacks or the equivalent for semi-automatics and banning their bullets would be a tough sell in America.

Not anything close to incremental change.

[Bluer White]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

i have some intellectual issues with hate crimes in general, but there's a pretty clear standard when it comes to their definition.

Obviously I have a few issues with the concept as well, and just disagree with your take on this particular incident.

[bono_212]

Originally Posted by Bluer White

Mandatory buybacks or the equivalent for semi-automatics and banning their bullets would be a tough sell in America.

Not anything close to incremental change.

Where does it specifically state that you get free range to what weapons you can purchase? It just says 'Bear arms". You can buy a weapon, you can bear an arm. A buyback for semi-automatics really shouldn't be that difficult. But of course, the NRA Washington will dig its heels in and prevent what it seems a great many people of this "Republic" want.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Bluer White

Mandatory buybacks or the equivalent for semi-automatics and banning their bullets would be a tough sell in America.



Not anything close to incremental change.

I think it would be a tough sell as well. We're talking about a country where 85% of the country wants more gun control, but politicians are too fearful of the NRA to do much of anything. If a classroom full of first graders mangled by semi-automatic weapons doesn't move our politicians to action, what will?

That said, it was clearly successful in two relatively culturally similar countries they have a fraction of our gun violence. Might it be a good idea?

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Bluer White

Obviously I have a few issues with the concept as well, and just disagree with your take on this particular incident.

It's not just my take, it's the legal definition. But what causes you to view this as a hate crime?

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by bono_212

Where does it specifically state that you get free range to what weapons you can purchase? It just says 'Bear arms". You can buy a weapon, you can bear an arm. A buyback for semi-automatics really shouldn't be that difficult. But of course, the NRA Washington will dig its heels in and prevent what it seems a great many people of this "Republic" want.

Really, we have to look at the history of the NRA and its leadership change in 1977 -- that was when the language around guns began to change and the notion of any gun, any time, any person, "from my cold, dead hands" as some sort of inalienable right came into vogue, and it gained steam during the Reagan years. Before that, the NRA was, ironically, focused on gun training and gun safety. Now, it's focused on the exact opposite -- gun sales, and whipping up nativist fear in order to do so.

[Bluer White]

Originally Posted by bono_212

Where does it specifically state that you get free range to what weapons you can purchase? It just says 'Bear arms". You can buy a weapon, you can bear an arm. A buyback for semi-automatics really shouldn't be that difficult. But of course, the NRA Washington will dig its heels in and prevent what it seems a great many people of this "Republic" want.

It would be that difficult though. And unrealistic.

[bobsaget77]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

I think it would be a tough sell as well. We're talking about a country where 85% of the country wants more gun control, but politicians are too fearful of the NRA to do much of anything. If a classroom full of first graders mangled by semi-automatic weapons doesn't move our politicians to action, what will?

That said, it was clearly successful in two relatively culturally similar countries they have a fraction of our gun violence. Might it be a good idea?

85% in the United States? Bull crap. You're off by over 30%. Heck, not even 80% of democrats support more gun control.
I'd like to see your source on that polling data.

Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[bono_212]

Originally Posted by bobsaget77

85% in the United States? Bull crap. You're off by over 30%. Heck, not even 80% of democrats support more gun control.
I'd like to see your source on that polling data.

Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

It's commonly understood that post Sandy Hook, around 80% of the country wanted stricter gun control. A bill was ready to go, and it didn't pass Congress. It would have, if I understand right, strengthened background check enforcement online and at gun shows, the one form of gun control enforcement overwhelmingly supported on both sides.

[Bluer White]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

It's not just my take, it's the legal definition. But what causes you to view this as a hate crime?

Of course I've read the legal definition and several interpretations of it, including yours here. Not going to argue any further about a label. Not going to bring anyone back.

[bobsaget77]

Originally Posted by bono_212

It's commonly understood that post Sandy Hook, around 80% of the country wanted stricter gun control. A bill was ready to go, and it didn't pass Congress. It would have, if I understand right, strengthened background check enforcement online and at gun shows, the one form of gun control enforcement overwhelmingly supported on both sides.

The recent polls I've checked from this month are around 52% of the nation. 77% of democrats, 48% of independents, and 31% of republicans. In fact, since January of 2013, it's been pretty consistently around 50%.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[LemonMelon]

I think 52% places us firmly in the region of "we need to have a serious talk about this situation and not just ignore it because gun lobby."

[Bluer White]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

I think it would be a tough sell as well. We're talking about a country where 85% of the country wants more gun control, but politicians are too fearful of the NRA to do much of anything. If a classroom full of first graders mangled by semi-automatic weapons doesn't move our politicians to action, what will?

I'm part of the percentage of the country looking for a little more gun common sense, and/or more spirited enforcement of existing laws. Don't really care about manufactured polling percentages.

85%, 52%. Whatever. I see a lot of non-starters in the thread here.

No wonder there's a stalemate in Congress.

[Oregoropa]

I read recently of proposal that would allow family members to put a hold on a family member to make a gun purchase if they were fearful of violence. Can't find a link to it right now.

That seems reasonable to me.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by Bluer White

I'm part of the percentage of the country looking for a little more gun common sense, and/or more spirited enforcement of existing laws. Don't really care about manufactured polling percentages.



85%, 52%. Whatever. I see a lot of non-starters in the thread here.



No wonder there's a stalemate in Congress.

There are lots of good ideas and solutions that have been implemented in other countries, as well as broad bipartisan support to do something.

The stalemate is almost entirely due to political fear and the big money behind the NRA.

[BVS]

Originally Posted by bobsaget77

The recent polls I've checked from this month are around 52% of the nation. 77% of democrats, 48% of independents, and 31% of republicans. In fact, since January of 2013, it's been pretty consistently around 50%.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

It all depends on the poll, the wording of the poll, and where it's being conducted.

If you equate "gun control" with confiscation then yeah your understanding of the polls is probably correct. If you understand gun control as better background checks and the removal of loop holes then the 80+% is correct.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference