Bob in Mich

So there isn't a component that arose from our support of repressive autocratic regimes for decades? Or from our liberation and life improvement mission for the Iraqis? No impact from the military actions that resulted in deaths to non combatants? Nothing to do with our favoring Israel over the Palestinians?

There were also a couple of other interesting points in that comedy routine. According to the FBI agent, about 20% of those active shooter situations were halted by an unarmed, potential victim overpowering the shooter. This is the very reason that many people think that limiting the magazine sizes that are readily available could save lives in some cases. That pause is worth a lot to potential victims. Why is preventing that pause so important to the enthusiasts? When Jordan Klepper got put into an active shooting scenario at an elementary school as the 'good guy with a gun', he accidentally shot an innocent, did not shoot either bad guy, got shot about 20 times by the 2 bad guys, and then got shot by the arriving police as he was mistaken for the shooter.

I have read enough of your posts to know that my mind can hold up quite well against yours. So, you don't feel the US policies have done anything to create this hatred? Even you cannot be that blind. No one is making excuses for murder but I am saying that for people to be willing to end their lives in a suicide attacks, they must have pretty strong bad feelings. Why do you think this hatred has taken hold?

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/office-of-partner-engagement/active-shooter-incidents/a-study-of-active-shooter-incidents-in-the-u.s.-2000-2013 Under Resolutions on page 11

Anybody watch this? According to the FBI agent in this video, FBI statistics claim that active shooter situations between 2000-2013 were effectively handled by an amateur 'good guy with a gun' in about 3% of those situations.

I never believed it when other politicians said it and I don't buy it now. Do you really think these jihadists hate us because we have freedoms in our country? That is just not sensible. It must be something that has had a greater impact on their lives or their history. It makes for a better speech perhaps but I don't think that is the reason. Does anyone? If suddenly our government did away with the entire constitution and we lost all of our freedoms, does anyone think the jihadists would be satisfied and stop attacking the US? Sasse says : “We owe it to those who died this week to tell the truth about the nature of this conflict. We owe it to these fourteen, we owe it to their families, we owe it to the service men and women in uniform who are abroad right now fighting for our freedom, some of whom will come home in caskets. And frankly, we owe it to those who are still yet to die in the future. ... This is not about anything that we have done wrong. This is about who we are. This is about the nature of freedom." I don't really buy this either. I agree we owe it to our soldiers to be truthful, but clearly Sasse is not being truthful. The US has done quite a bit to help these folks hate us.

Maybe it was carryover from the Bills, but I yelled at the TV a lot in this game. The Sabres gave up so many chances. They passed up so many hits. Their passing was off most of the game. I know, I know, they won, but they did not play well, imo. I guess they came up empty handed some games that they deserved points so ...

'A Good Guy With a Gun', a segment on last night's Daily Show, made some interesting points. I will say, I have seen funnier segments. Jordan Klepper misses on quite a few jokes, imo This is the entire show but I think (after the ad) you can skip to about the 4 minute, 15 second mark for Jordan's gun story http://www.cc.com/full-episodes/vowh47/the-daily-show-with-trevor-noah-december-10--2015---michael-strahan-season-21-ep-21036 Note, some bad language that may not be bleeped out.

I guess there are different ways to look at the large field on the Republican side. In my opinion, it is not a sign of strength. Forget politics for a second and say you were thinking of entering a winner-take-all road race. In addition, let's say there is a very large entrance fee. If you wanted to race, you would look at who you are running against. If the competition looked very tough, maybe too tough, you might think it not the best time to enter a race. If the competition looked vulnerable, you would be more encouraged to risk the entrance fee and you might be more likely to race

Thanks for the info. That is a bit of a relief

I was wondering if the Pegula's money pile was in danger of shrinking. While I follow the Bills I will admit to not knowing too much about how the Pegula's make their money. Many oil and gas companies are sliding toward financial difficulties as oil and gas prices continue to fall. Many have made huge investments and taken on a great deal of debt. Anyone know enough about the Pegula business model to know if they will continue to build wealth or do they have debt issues on their horizon, like many other oil and gas companies?

Did you dig out that baggie today? You sound uncharacteristically reasonable. lol Jim, perhaps you are right. I will keep an open mind going forward.

Less obvious than I thought I guess. You are welcome!!

Ah Jim, nothing if not consistent. Jim is trying to warn any posters that I am a medical cannabis patient. Please keep that in mind. Also, in the spirit of keeping the group informed, Jim consistently posts as an **** would. You should probably keep that in mind if you decide to read his posts.

Exercising those rights have far less chance of killing people two hours later than allowing everyone to buy any weapon because you are apparently afraid of the slippery slope. I think claiming that there is no way to compile such a list is acting intellectually dishonest.

I disagree and let me take it to the extreme, just to try to make the point. Hypothetically, say you are sold the first gun. Before that point, the public was in no danger of being harmed by guns. After, they are in some increased level of possible danger. As you say, if never used against another person, the harm doesn't materialize. If your life takes a terrible turn in the future, you may menace us with that gun. Or, if you get careless, and let that weapon fall into the wrong hands, again the rest of us may be harmed by that gun purchase. The point is to try to try to think of some way, that allows you to essentially keep your guns if you are a good citizen and not allow guns to the bad citizens. Limiting sales to obvious dangers is good, if it can be determined. Maybe periodic gun license reviews could help in some cases. Maybe anonymous gun danger tip lines might help in some cases. I am not claiming to have solutions. I was just looking for some possible interesting ideas.

You are right. What I am saying is that there is a spectrum of danger to others that is related to gun sales to the public, imo. Shooting me is at the end of the spectrum but was used to make the point that there is this spectrum. The reason I decided to post in this thread was to try to discuss and listen to some ideas. Where exactly on that danger spectrum any limits could be looked at, is wide open for discussion, and is the point of the discussion.

I wouldn't really wait on my replies. I have a couple of other things I'm doing. Well, as I said, it is very difficult to determine where that line would be but I would say it is easy to say that at the point you shoot me, You have infringed on my rights. True? OK, is there anything short of that that would infringe on my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Threatening me with that weapon would also infringe on my rights. Many of us are just searching for some way to red flag those that want to harm innocents. That is it. That doesn't make us opponents or fools. Ideally, I think that there should be less weapons available overall. Having said that, this country is awash in guns and I think anyone that wants one should be able to buy one, assuming they are not obviously a danger to the public by that purchase. Just another thought, why not try limiting all the labels in these discussions. Very few of us have beliefs totally aligned with any party or group. Talk to the individual and not the group.

Yeah, get to the playoffs. Spoiler role is for when the rest is over. I am not silly confident but it ain't over yet. Besides, a playoff loss is at least a good experience for next year's super amazing run

I disagree with most of this, though it is well stated. Why can't the no fly list be used as a starting point to create a weapons sale restriction list. Give the prospective buyer some method of appeal and correction and over time, come up with a better list. This idea that anything in the constitution is sacrosanct is ridiculous. The founding fathers put in ways to change it. Can it be more apparent that they thought that need might arise? Wanting to stop deaths from auto accidents is a very valid comparison, imo. Your distinction between right and privilege is not really relevant to my point. My point was that a problem can be addressed lots of different ways. The other point is that the expression of your rights are not unlimited. Your rights extend up to the point where exercising your rights begins to infringe on the constitutional rights of others. Extremely difficult to say where that point is, but there is a point

There are numerous types of mass shootings. There is no one practical solution that will address all. We need to be careful about completely dismissing an idea simply because that idea will not correct every mass shooting case. Just like when we decided automobile deaths were more preventable. We addressed brakes, crumple zones, seat belts, guard rails, pavement, lighting, signage, drunk driving, insurance, inspections, etc, etc. There can be different angles that combine to reduce deaths, imo. Any chance some of you could take a break from winning the discussion and throw out some 'outside the box' ideas?

There are lots of bad guys. I think we do need to be concerned about most on the no fly list. Just because some of the bad guys may be able to skirt the law and acquire weapons, is not a good reason to make it simple and legal for them to get weapons.

Well, OK, there are then obviously problems using this list as it is to restrict weapons purchases. Is there any better list of international bad guys out there? Why couldn't this list be taken as a starting point? Give the prospective gun owners a better path to correct errors than the air industry gives. Perhaps that would delay any purchases by a week for eventual qualifiers. Might that be acceptable?

Well, it is on page 14, though I know the vast majority of those posts are probably insults Rob, I am not going to step into the gun discussion here. As mentioned above, wrong forum for brainstorming.

The OP makes a lot of good points. I disagree on several points. (I did not read entire thread either) Certainly not making friends with the gun enthusiasts. Designed to provoke a discussion though, and it did. Apparently not out of line for this forum as the mods didn't intervene. Seems to me that the idea was to try to look for possible ideas from those most objecting to gun controls. They might know where things could be done without really impacting responsible owners.