Alex_Krycek

I had the displeasure of debating a Trump supporter about this today. They gave Donny a complete free pass, dismissing it as "fake news". "The liberal media this, the liberal media that." Jeesh... I think the core reason is Trump supporters prefer to feel rather than think, they prefer emotion over logic. Trump today: “Let me be totally clear in saying that … I accept our intelligence community’s conclusion,” Trump said, reading from a prepared script. He then added: “It could be other people also. There’s a lot of people out there.” That ranks right up there with: "It's surrounded by water: Big Water."

We'll have to to leave it up to the states and local communities. A one size fits all solution might not be appropriate. Some rural areas trust their teachers with guns more than the police, who take a long time to arrive. Other areas might have a more robust police force that can respond quicker. But most school shooters are armed to the teeth, packing explosives, assault rifles, body armor, etc. You would need a teacher trained Counter Assault Team to effectively deal with most school shooters. (Which is why the resource officer at Parkland probably stayed outside) One pitfall I can see is that teachers might begin to fear their students as police fear civilians, and escalate situations where they feel compelled to use a firearm. This is what police generally do in the US. A conflict occurs, and rather than de-escalate the situation, the police escalate it until deadly force becomes the only logical option in their mind. If teacher's enter this same fight or flight mindset and they're armed, then schools will more unsafe.

What do you mean - when customers don't pay you, setting up contracts effectively, etc? Thanks. SowWhen you started your business, how long did it take you to be "successful", to reach your goals? 6 months, 1 year, 5 years? Did you ever fail and go bankrupt, and then try again?

In your mind what was the number one thing that contributed to your success?

Ok. What kind of business did you start? What were the main challenges that you faced?

I am looking for advice from anyone who has started their own business. I work a day job right now but I'm thinking of quitting and pursuing my own ideas for making money. I have a detailed plan that I've been refining for some time. Have you ever started your own business? What was your experience? Were you a success or failure? Were you glad you did it or did you regret it? What were the main challenges that you faced?

If it limits an individual's potential then I would argue that it is a negative thing. For example, if a person is forced to be a janitor because they never had the chance to pursue their education because of financial reasons, and they have the ability to become a great scientist, engineer, teacher, inventor, etc then that is a societal ill.

Access to Educational Opportunities Willingness to Pursue those Opportunities

Because if your goal is a perpetually expanding cycle of profit based on treating a problem then there's no solution to be found in a solution. The only solution is in perpetuating and controlling an ever expanding problem. Not if you already have a captive market, which the pharmaceutical companies do in the US, as they exercise control over the medical establishment and by extension their patients (via government lobbying, the private insurance industry, and privatization of hospitals). Make human beings the focus of society instead of profit. If this happens then everything changes.

Perhaps not. But I think this is more of a cultural problem in the US. There is a fixation on violence and control in our society that I haven't seen in other developed countries. The cult in this image is an example. At the slightest provocation an American is more likely to reach for a gun than any other developed nation, primarily because we're a country governed by paranoia and violence.

Is it? Many other countries have a comparable number of guns per capita as the US, and they don't experience these events. For example, in Europe and Canada many people own guns. There's something unique about the US, whether it's our culture, or lack of adequate mental health care, or some other contributing variable that sets us apart.

There doesn't seem to be much discussion about psychiatric medication being the cause of these shootings. The majority of school shooters have been on some form of medication, including Nikolas Cruz of Parkland. The media should be talking more about this, as most of these medications list homicidal / suicidal ideation as a known side effect. I doubt there will be much attention paid to this, however, as the pharmaceutical industry has so much clout and lobbying power. They're not about to entertain the notion that their products turn people into homicidal maniacs. It's easier just to blame guns. The International Society for Ethical Psychology and Psychiatry called for an investigation into this back in 2013 after Newtown. http://psychintegrity.org/statementontheconnectionbetweenpsychotropicddrugsandmassmurder/

It's difficult to argue with you when you keep choosing to purposefully misrepresent the facts: "The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which incorporated the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, banned the manufacturing and importing of the rifle [AR-15] along with other assault rifles, but the ban ended in 2004. The regulation of the rifle is now left up to the states, and several state regulations are described below" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "California Penal Code section 12276 subdivisions (e) and (f) made it unlawful to sell an AK or AR-15 series rifle after August 16, 2000 in the state of California. Certain features of the weapon may be removed to declassify it as an assault weapon, but it’s still illegal to sell in California. It is legal to possess the weapon in California if it was possessed before December 31, 1999 and registered with the state before December 31, 2000." ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Colorado In January of 2007, the Denver City Council passed a law that modified the city’s assault weapon ban. It is legal to own an AR-15 or other assault rifles if they do not contain a magazine with 21 or more rounds. " source: https://gun.laws.com/ar-15 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Under the 1994 Federal Assault weapons ban, the AR-15 was on the list of banned firearms. And one more thing, the type of ammo that the AR-15 uses? .45 and .22 But none of this seems to matter to you. You prefer your own made up definitions. Generally I think there is a kind of fatalistic lethargy in the minds of gun owners when it comes to tackling this problem. Their view is that guns make society safer, which is patently false, but yet they cling to this logical fallacy and promote less regulation and more consumption of firearms (driven by thought system 1). They don't care about other people affected by gun violence, only themselves and their families, which is why they don't do anything substantive when tragedies occur. Sure they like to pray about it, and if they are personally affected by it they pray and cry and believe their deceased loved one is in heaven. But they don't want to actually do anything, that would require compromising their guns, which is their main priority above all else.

You seem to be blatantly ignoring the definition of assault rifle to help your argument. "The semi-automatic version of the United States military M16 rifle". And what is an M16? *drum roll please* It is an ASSAULT RIFLE. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle So, we can move on. Finally. Or perhaps you don't know how to respond to the facts because you have no rebuttal argument.

Here, I highlighted it in bold with capital letters so that you won't miss it: A RIFLE THAT RESEMBLES A MILITARY ASSAULT RIFLE BUT IS DESIGNED TO ALLOW ONLY SEMO-AUTOMATIC FIRE Are you seriously trying to suggest that an AR-15 or SIG MCX does not fit that category? It doesn't really matter what generalizations anyone makes at this point. 20 kids were gunned down at Sandy Hook in 2012 and gun-owners didn't do a damn thing. That's all anyone needs to know at this point about the seriousness of your intent.

Nor I. Amending the constitution is a very serious matter. So is the epidemic of violence plaguing our country. We need to define why people need firearms in the modern era, what is a legitimate reason to own one. Personal collections and target practice seem like frivolous reasons to me, but we need to have that debate. It would be similar to someone saying they like to collect level 4 biological agents and keep them in their refrigerator because it's their hobby. The rest of us would agree that this would be an unacceptable risk to the general public and a frivolous justification. Remember the Patriot Act? It was passed into law in 2001. If the government really wants to, they can call you a terrorist and deny you a fair trial. I never said they were all mass murderers. I said that because there is a substantial percentage of mentally ill people in the country, and there are hundreds of millions of guns, AND these guns are so readily available to anyone who wants one, it's inevitable that we would see these levels of violence in our society. Look at the numbers. AMERICAN POPULATION (Estimate) = 327,117,023 NUMBER OF GUNS IN AMERICA = 310,000,000 (conservative estimate) PERCENTAGE OF MENTALLY ILL PEOPLE IN AMERICA = 18.2% So the number of mentally ill people in America = 59,000,000 (18.2% x 327,117,023) So, using an extremely conservative model, if only 1 percent of these mentally ill people are involved in a violent incident, then you will have 590,000 violent incidents because of mental health each year. (1% of 59,000,000 = 590,000). If only 10% of these violent incidents involve a firearm, then you would have 59,000 violent incidents involving a firearm each year because of mental health. Now, we don't know the actual percentages (partly because the NRA lobbies so intensely to stop any federally funded research into the subject (http://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-nra-kills-gun-violence-research-2013-1), but as you can see, even in this extremely conservative model, the numbers are alarming. It's systemically inevitable. http://www.newsweek.com/nearly-1-5-americans-suffer-mental-illness-each-year-230608 This is a debate. It's inevitable. That's because he isn't seriously considering the implications of it. Yes, because in the current situation that is the only logical way to view it. Anyone with a serious mental health issue should not be allowed to own a deadly weapon. It's grossly irresponsible to suggest otherwise. I'm more concerned with schizophrenia, bi-polar disorder, or clinical depression. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault rifle Well, state what you feel is a legitimate reason to own a firearm and we will debate. You know as well as I do that they only get up in arms when people start talking about gun control. Any other rights, they couldn't care less about. Such as? No, you just chose to ignore the points I was making instead of addressing them and creating a rebuttal. Possibly because you won't state your solution to the problem. It's easy to sit on the fence. What is your answer to this problem?

We're talking about magazine capacity - a semi-automatic weapon with a 30 round magazine qualifies as an assault rifle. This kind of obstinacy on your part is why nothing ever changes. At some point we'll have to clarify why people need firearms. It's not 1776 anymore. There's no wild west frontier. The British government isn't planning to retake the colonies. If target practice is your justification for having the second amendment, perhaps we should amend the constitution again and erase the right to keep and bear arms. You must not keep up with the news. NSA wiretapping. Eminent domain. The end of habeas corpus. Guess you have never heard of these things. It's "over the top and sensational" to point out that America has a mental health problem? I find that a bit odd. Isn't this what right wingers always say: it's not the guns! it's mental health." Are you really suggesting that all people who own firearms remain completely stable for their entire lives? You're in favor of token reforms by the sound of it, not serious solutions.

Here's what you wrote before: "That guy had a fully automatic weapon. Not an AR-15." Yes, it does actually. You're in denial about what is happening in the big picture. This goes back to the point that was made earlier about the two systems of thought. You're focusing on your friends who you see as good guys. Maybe they are. It's irrelevant. Because of a lack of vetting and regulation, your friends are participating in a business that makes guns available to almost anyone. Additionally, you're choosing to ignore the statistics about mental health. More denial. How come every time a mass shooting happens the mantra from the right is always: "it's a mental health problem, not a gun problem!" but then not a single thing is done to vet customers who may be afflicted by a mental illness. And we need routine vetting too - every year at the minimum. Just because someone is stable when they purchase the weapon doesn't mean they will continue to be that way.

Practically any person in the country can purchase as many guns as they want. A significant percentage of the public also suffers from mental illness. Compounded by the fact that Donny Trump just rescinded a law that would take guns away from people not mentally fit to handle their finances. Hmmmm...so a person isn't in the proper frame of mind to handle their money, but they can be trusted with a gun...interesting. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-signs-bill-revoking-obama-era-gun-checks-people-mental-n727221 Ok. Keep believing that. Denial ain't a river in Egypt....

Do they have mannequins of women in their house that they dress up in lingerie and talk to? This wacko does, and he has the most guns in America. Your friends may not be crazy (yet) but many gun owners are, or they're headed that way. Do we protect your friends' right to own multiple weapons (knowing that they're peddling weapons to an unstable public) or do we protect the masses of people who have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? We've tried your way. It's not working. Depends on how you define "assault rifle". Websters definition works for me. There's a certain base level of round capacity that qualifies a rifle as an assault rifle. A reasonable person would look at a rifle that can discharge 20-30 rounds per minute and conclude that it meets the criteria. Incorrect. Paddock modified semi-automatic AR-15s with bump-stocks to make them fully automatic. There's a reason these mass murderes reach for the AR every time: magazine capacity.

Yep. Here's the definition from Merriam-Webster of an assault rifle: Seems on point to me. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault rifle

A semi-auto rifle that can discharge 30 rounds in under a minute is a de-facto assault rifle. Calling it by any other name is disingenuous to it's real purpose. A firearm like the SIG MCX, which can be silenced, equipped with a red dot sight, and uses a 30 round magazine is built for the purpose of assaulting multiple targets with maximum efficiency. Watch this SIG MCX commercial and tell me this isn't an assault rifle. This is a firearm that is available to the general public. The only legitimate reasons for having a firearm are hunting and self defense. Defending against government tyranny is a laughable idea. If push came to shove, the US gov would quickly overwhelm any militia attempting to subvert it. It's a nonsensical idea. Additionally, the gov already took away most of our rights without a single peep of resistance from 2nd amendment advocates. Seems all they care about is that particular amendment and not the 32 others. Keeping 25 guns in your house because it's your hobby is frivolous and shouldn't be protected either. I'm for the idea of people being able to collect guns, as long as they're non-functional. But people like to stockpile weapons. Then 10 years later they go nuts. This has to stop. Firearms like the SIG MCX and AR-15 are a problem because of their ability to discharge so many rounds per minute. This is a big factor in the lethality of mass shootings. If Stephen Paddock [Las Vegas] had been shooting at people with a bolt action rifle instead of a high capacity assault rifle with bump stock (making it practically fully automatic) he would have done far less damage. People would have had a chance to run. He wouldn't have been able to suppress them like was in a combat. Same with this guy in Florida. If he had to reload after 8 rounds it gives people a chance to intervene, which often they try to do. So two guns per person should be the new rule. Two guns total. And these should be firearms with limited round capacity. If your priority is self defense, great. Buy a handgun with some stopping power and a shotgun. If you enjoy hunting, get two bolt action rifles. So limiting the amount of damage a person can do within a certain timeframe would have an impact on this problem. It's not the only solution, but part of it.

I agree. I wasn't arguing that it was a correct line of reasoning, simply that most gun owners think that way.

Can you provide a poll or some other evidence verifying that? The NRA has a core membership of 5 million, but there are many others who tacitly support their efforts. From the individual's myopic perspective, guns are seen as protection against this possible threat, not a risk factor that would increase it's likelihood. This goes back to the problem of the individual's perception of their own life vs. their life as it relates to society as a whole. From the individual perspective, it makes sense to arm oneself, because the individual can grasp what he / she can do on a purely instinctual level. When it becomes abstracted in terms of how the individual person's firearm ownership relates to the aggregate, ordinary people are unable to compute that - it's too far removed. Having a tangible means of keeping oneself and one's family safe are the priorities for someone under threat, not brainstorming complex solutions that may or may not make society safer 10-20 years in the future. My point was that the individual in system 1 would never achieve this higher order level of thinking. If you're operating in system 2, then you might actually consider the long term implications of any random person owning firearms, including yourself. So you're right, Stephen Paddock (the Las Vegas shooter) would never entertain the notion that he would someday lose it and gun down hundreds of people from the upper floors of the Mandalay Bay. But he is the perfect representation of the reality facing America: hundreds of thousands, possibly millions of people having access to deadly weapons who are either A.) mentally unstable now or B.) are on the road to being mentally unstable in the future. It's a scary thought when you see the reality of the situation we're in. Under the present conditions, it's statistically impossible that mass shootings in America will ever stop. In fact they will continue to increase. You don't need to look further than that - but you can. The gun manufacturers have a financial interest in keeping these mass shootings going. The more fear that's out there, the more likely it is that people will buy guns, and the more likely that shootings will occur - continue the cycle. Assuming that the constant of bribed politicians never changes, this increase in societal fear will continue to drive profits higher and higher.