OT: Gabe Kapler
- Thread starter Knightmoves
- Start date
- Status
You didn't answer his question. Let's not pretend that the stupidity jsut resides on the side of Democrats here.
And Defund the Police has been very limited across the country. Democrats passed increased police funding in Congress. Philadelphia, where there was that recent shooting, is close to passing a budget later in June or July where the Democratic mayor asked for $24 million in increased police spending. FWIW, Krasner, the DA is a total disaster as some have noted in this thread. NYC? I think the latest budget has police (or at least some police like corrections officers) flat for the next year. Not because of De-Fund the Police stuff but because Adams is basically requiring ALL departments trim 3% from their budgets.
Defund The Police was a really stupid concept that some progressives latched onto and now is being used against most Democrats on the campaign trails. Anyone with a brain could see that would happen because 1) most police departments, even in major cities, wouldn't see a budget decrease to appease these people and 2) it would be an easy campaign slam from Republicans.
Politicians aren't very bright.
I meant to address that first sentence but forgot. Anyway, let me do so now, because I think it's important.
The primary pragmatic reason for not treating NJ and, say, Wyoming the same with vis-a-vis guns is because they are very different places in terms of police presence by square mile, population density, wildlife, etc. NYS and NYC have different differences in their gun laws for the same reason.
Ideologically speaking, my personal opinion is that we should always try to push as much legislation as possible out to the smallest possible legislative domains (i.e. local, if not country, if not state). Because doing that results in the greatest degree of freedom in the United States. Why do we need people in from FL determining how people in NJ should live, or vice versa?
Of course some things cannot really work unless handled at a federal level (e.g. funding for national security). The proper dividing line is always challenging to identify.
One mass shooter is one too many, from an emotional standpoint. However, as horrific as any mass shooting is, the numbers are still basically something like 99.999999% of gun owners are NOT engaging in mass shootings. Only something like 0.000001% are mass shooters. So why make a law that curtails individual freedom for 99.999999% of Americans because of the bad acts of 0.000001% of Americans? When considering WV, why should they be forced to adopt CA's laws when they don't appear to have the same mass shooter problems experienced in CA with it's set of gun laws. Makes no sense to federalize it.
Yes and no. I think it's the voters that aren't very bright, generally speaking. Because we continue to elect the same folks to congress despite apparently hating the job they're doing. Somehow, the politicians keep getting reelected which makes them seem smarter than the electorate that keeps voting for them.
I mean this to apply to voters and politicians of both parties equally, not just one or the other.
OK...when was the last mass shooting in NJ? When was the last shooting that killed as many as Uvalde...or Sutherland Springs...or El Paso...or Santa Fe...just in comparison to TX?
Again, no one is taking away the ability of people to defend themselves in their own home. SCOTUS specifically outlined, a handgun at home is fine. NJ law doesn't conflict with that, or it'd have been thrown out already.
What people are talking about is limiting magazine capacity. That likely would have stopped a lot of these major mass shootings. I mean it doesn't strike anyone as sensible that someone can walk into a store and buy 2 AR-15s and 300 rounds...no one is hunting "feral pigs" or "varmin" with that.
Uh huh. Where "on the street" did the Uvalde and Buffalo killers buy their guns?
Very simple. The problem is someone is Wyoming (or wherever) can take their weapon to NJ and use it to cause deadly harm. In fact, both NY and NJ have shown an overwhelming percentage of guns used in crimes here were bought in states with lax gun laws. They call it the iron or lead pipeline.
The other problem is that SCOTUS seems to be of the opinion that the states can't limit gun laws- but of course can limit every other aspect of bodily autonomy. This is of course an absurd reading. But it means we're stuck with the laws of the weak link.
While I generally think NJ is safer for a variety of reasons- our gun laws are stricter, guns are not part of our culture, our police while certainly imperfect tend to do better than you see elsewhere- the risk of a crazy person from OOS needs to be addressed somehow.
The shooter from Buffalo mentioned Jersey City and other NJ cities in his manifesto...I got a shiver down my spine walking past my supermarket just thinking about that. It has to be addressed.
So... first off, I have no great problem with NJ's magazine limits. The limits is 10 rounds for all guns.
However, there's no workable logic behind saying that magazine limits can somehow prevent or stop a mass shooting. All it is is a very minor and easily overcome inconvenience to anybody, including a mass shooter. Not saying the inconvenience isn't somewhat helpful. Just saying it won't stop or prevent a mass shooting. Might end it a little quicker in certain situations, though.
Ejecting an empty mag and inserting a full one is very, very fast with even a little practice. Shooters can just carry more magazines.
When I go to the range to train with a pistol, I take 10 mags so I only have to reload mags every 100 rounds. The mags are often very lightweight, it's the rounds in them that can get heavy. So basically, 100 rounds spread over 10 mags versus 100 rounds spread over fewer mags isn't going to be an appreciable weight difference. It is, however, a volume difference, so ultimately, it can be slightly harder to carry all the additional mags due to mag limits.
We need better background checks. And I would have no objections about requiring gun owners to qualify with their weapons every year or three, redoing the background checks on the same schedule. And although it would be tricky to do, I think I could see a path to requiring a psychological exam. As long as it provides a mechanism for appeal and applicants can reapply periodically, it might be possible to do it somewhat fairly. A built in wait period wouldn't be the worst thing, either. Which would likely be organically produced by doing more intense background checks and qualifying exams.
Those things might have stopped the TX shooter. Mag limits, however, wouldn't have had any particular positive impact on reducing his crime.
However, it does no good, in TX, to convince folks in NJ about any of this. Texans are gonna have to figure out what they wish to do themselves.
Imagine that NJ's gun laws were forced onto all 50 states. The convicted felon in WV a couple weeks back, who by law in every state in the US was prohibited from owning a firearm, would've opened fire on the birthday party as he did and, with people in WV no longer allowed to carry guns (because we forced the NJ law on them), he would've killed as many as 40 entirely defenseless people. Instead, WV (with an extremely low mass shooting rate) has laws that allow the woman-hero to not only carry her legal firearm, but to use it to defend innocent people against a violent criminal.
In 1986, Congress passed: S.49 - Firearms Owners' Protection Act. That law essentially banned the sale or possession of new fully automatic weapons in all 50 states. Many states, including TX, have laws banning fully automatic weapons as well. And yet new fully automatic weapons are used in crimes across the nation today. Which means criminals are obviously not respecting gun control laws.
I am not willing to sacrifice 40 people at a birthday party just because people in NJ might prefer their own state's gun laws to WV's.
I'd much rather see NJ become somewhat more permissive about who can carry. That way, in your scenario at the food store, there's some hope that a good person, who passes a similar psych test as cops, and regularly trains and qualifies with their legal gun, would be there to help protect your shivering butt from an armed criminal from Buffalo, at least until the cops arrive on the scene.
On this issue please quit while you’re ahead. You insist on twisting yourself into a pretzel to rationalize your inane, radical stance.
But, on the positive side you now have several fans from the RWCJ. Great job on that!
100% spot on. The sad thing is these people have no idea how insane they are.
On this issue please quit while you’re ahead. You insist on twisting yourself into a pretzel to rationalize your inane, radical stance.
But, on the positive side you now have several fans from the RWCJ. Great job on that!
Bac and mildone is straight homeboyz 4 life now.
Which should be a very big red flag.
Let’s not limit the discussion to Uvalde and Buffalo. There are many mass shootings in large cities that are not covered on tv.
Gun reforms should not cherry pick the latest Uvalde and Buffalo incidents and base solutions on that alone.
The false premise that you always seem to go back to is that somehow people are proposing to take guns away from law abiding citizens. This is not nor has it ever been the case. Sensible gun laws and regulations will not preclude law abiding people of their ability to possess firearms to protect themselves.
Throw our the phony straw man arguments and address the topic at hand.
Last edited:
Neither technical analysis nor statistics are necessary to understand that the AR-15 is THE WEAPON OF CHOICE among aspiring mass murderers. How about the “we value the sanctity of life” party start there with potential restrictions. Or maybe this “sanctity of life” stuff is just “virtue signaling” (to borrow a ridiculous righty buzzword they heard on talk radio).
Lol, huge revelation, once again, yada yada yada.
Laws don’t prevent people from breaking laws. Thanks man! Brilliant.
Then pray tell, what purpose do laws serve? What purpose does law enforcement serve? Let’s do away with it all and save everyone a boatload of money!
Last edited:
This study suggests otherwise.
State laws requiring a permit to purchase a firearm were associated with 60% lower odds of a mass public shooting occurring (95% confidence interval [CI: −32%, −76%]). Large-capacity magazine bans were associated with 38% fewer fatalities (95% CI [−12%, −57%]) and 77% fewer nonfatal injuries (95% CI [−43%, −91%]) when a mass shooting occurred.
On this issue please quit while you’re ahead. You insist on twisting yourself into a pretzel to rationalize your inane, radical stance.
But, on the positive side you now have several fans from the RWCJ. Great job on that!
Yawn.
I take it, since neither of you has been able to logically or factually counter any of my arguments, and since you've both resorted to embarrassingly unsophisticated trolling posts, that I've won comprehensively.
It was a pleasure debating you. Not at all challenging. But still pleasurable.
I haven't seen that and will dig into it when I have a chance. Looks pretty interesting and well-written. Thanks for posting it.
Yo, @fsg2 and @BossNJ. Y'all might consider emulating Frida's approach here. You know, factual and relevant information citing references references and sources. Or, you know, don't and keep trolling because that will surely be highly persuasive.
Last edited:
“A leftist”
man the echo chamber media has sure done a job, bringing their followers to their dreamed talking points and nomenclature
The political operative talking point referring to global warming as climate change has been exceeded by leaps and bounds. Now those who are not in lockstep are leftists groomers etc. Dont really think some know how indoctrinated they have become.
Four legs bad…
man the echo chamber media has sure done a job, bringing their followers to their dreamed talking points and nomenclature
The political operative talking point referring to global warming as climate change has been exceeded by leaps and bounds. Now those who are not in lockstep are leftists groomers etc. Dont really think some know how indoctrinated they have become.
Four legs bad…
Yawn.
I take it, since neither of you has been able to logically or factually counter any of my arguments, and since you've both resorted to embarrassingly unsophisticated trolling posts, that I've won comprehensively.
It was a pleasure debating you. Not at all challenging. But still pleasurable.
You understand that simply saying "logical" and "factual" does not make it so, yes?
In fact, if your argument were so deeply rooted in fact and logic, you wouldn't have to keep repeating how you're using fact and logic. That should shine through on its own.
You already admitted that the "factual" basis of your argument doesn't conclusively support any specific course of action, which includes the one for which you advocate. Didn't feel the need to dunk on you at that point, but perhaps I should have to prevent you from the false victory you're trying to declare.
That's why getting the bac-pat should feel alarming
I do understand that simply saying logical and facts doesn't make it so. It's that I'm using facts and logic that makes what I've been writing logical and factual.You understand that simply saying "logical" and "factual" does not make it so, yes?
In fact, if your argument were so deeply rooted in fact and logic, you wouldn't have to keep repeating how you're using fact and logic. That should shine through on its own.
You already admitted that the "factual" basis of your argument doesn't conclusively support any specific course of action, which includes the one for which you advocate. Didn't feel the need to dunk on you at that point, but perhaps I should have to prevent you from the false victory you're trying to declare.
That's why getting the bac-pat should feel alarming
Also, I'm not seriously dunking on anybody. I'm mocking the weak troll attempts with better crafted trolling responses. Hm... now was that dunking or trolling? So hard to tell.
You fail to mention that you have no “arguments”, however you did manage to regurgitate plenty of gun lobby talking points even though you claim ignorance about them.Yawn.
I take it, since neither of you has been able to logically or factually counter any of my arguments, and since you've both resorted to embarrassingly unsophisticated trolling posts, that I've won comprehensively.
It was a pleasure debating you. Not at all challenging. But still pleasurable.
As for fact, but, but, but, West Virginia!!! If that trash qualifies as legitimate “facts” well then, you’ve really impressed.
@bac2therac sudden admiration tells anyone all they need to know about your “facts” and “logic”.
You certainly take the prize for the self-professed aw shucks “I’m just the smartest guy in the room” smugness.
And good luck with that sentiment..
You certainly take the prize for the self-professed aw shucks “I’m just the smartest guy in the room” smugness.
And good luck with that sentiment..
He is the best at getting lost at sea in his own verbosity and forgetting what he's saying and already said.
Says it all about you. No one was talking parties or political spectrum.
Back to the CE board for you, cretin.
True; I'm taking a pretty moderate, centrist, pragmatic stance here.
I've not advocated for fully automatic weapons to be legal or said we shouldn't have any gun laws. I've agreed that certain tougher gun laws appear to correlate with reduced ordinary gun violence. I've shown, using the data posted by anti-gun folks in this and the slightly older gun thread now on the CE board, that there are major questions about the effectiveness of tough gun laws on preventing mass shootings. The data posted so far clearly doesn't not support any firm conclusions about that.
And I've discussed some gun facts, accurately and in some detail, including why some popular gun laws (e.g. mag limits) can't actually prevent a mass shooting while also stating that I can live with those laws anyway if it makes people feel better.
Nothing at all extreme in my arguments. Hell, I've advocated for some gun regulation that would infuriate the NRA.
Well the people today have done more to help make San Francisco safer than anything Steve Kerr or Gabe Kapler could ever do. Hopefully this is the first step in a return to reality.
We’ve all known someone like him, the proverbial guy who “loves to hear himself talk.”
He sure does produce some lovely prose though..
I mean, I am indisputably the smartest person in the room I'm in at the moment. Also the dumbest.You certainly take the prize for the self-professed aw shucks “I’m just the smartest guy in the room” smugness.
And good luck with that sentiment..
Or am I just being smug again.
Have you considered that if the whole country had NJ's gun laws...the only illegal guns would be those smuggled in from Canada (LOL) or Mexico (possible, but the pipeline works mostly the other way)....and that the guy in WV probably has no gun? Maybe, maybe, he has a knife, on his best day?
By your own admission NJ has much less of a shooting problem...is it our laws...or is everyone in NJ just better at mental health?
Sure. Let's talk about:
- Why Jacksonville has 3x the homicide rate of NYC and San Fran
- Why Missouri is home to two of the country's most dangerous cities
- Why Alaska is the state with the most gun deaths
It's a real mystery. You'll note Chicago is nowhere near the top of most dangerous cities as well. You'll further note the states with some of the least gun crime are NJ, CT and MA.
Who can figure it out...it's a real head scratcher...
Who is in charge in Jacksonville, with 3x San Fran's murder rate?
There's absolutely no conclusive evidence that, in the absence of legal guns across the nation, convicted felons or other criminals would not have equal or even increased access to guns. The failed war on drugs is a strong argument that banning stuff people want doesn't work in the US.
Yes, I've said that NJ has less of an ordinary gun violence problem. And yes, I think it's due, in part, to some of NJ's gun laws. But CA gun laws, which are slightly tougher than NJs, are clearly not working to prevent mass shootings there. And WV has amongst the least mass shootings in the nation and we have conclusive unarguable proof, not theories or wishful thinking, that their permissive gun laws can work to prevent a mass shooting. Because that happened just a couple weeks ago.
Correct answers rarely, if ever, come from discarding evidence we don't like. We must consider all 50 states. And we must also consider that success in any given state, be it NJ or WV, may not be due to the entirety of their guns laws. It may be that some laws are helping and some are hurting or that the absence of some laws are hurting. What I think we ought to do is more closely examine which gun laws helping and which are hurting.
To a large extent, this is all moot. Congress, based on current talks, clearly has no intention of enacting new gun legislation that involves new gun bans or mag limits or carry restrictions. They're just discussing stuff similar to some of the suggestions I've made here, doable stuff that can be achieved, won't do much harm. Thankfully, none of it is as massively stupid as banning body armor.
wonder the background of the guy who wanted to kill a sitting supreme court justice who was egged on by Schumer
- Status