Del. Nick Freitas' guns speech goes viral.

[lfd0311]

Lol, have you skipped this entire thread?

And how was your statement one that mocked my position that the man in the video is being disingenuous?

I don't read your conversations with other people.

Read your post I responded to. The Left is amazingly dishonest about this issue, yet you're trying to pretend this man is. Count this as dodge number one. Right out of the gate and you're dodging already, this should be fun.

 

[Teppodama]

Actually I was mocking your position that the Right is being disingenious on this subject, but since we're at it, why don't you explain where this man was telling half truths?

At the heart of the disagreement between nac386 and myself regarding the speech, it's a difference of opinion in interpretation of what was said and the reasons behind what was said.

It's just a legit difference of opinion on how we viewed what was said. I don't think that makes either of us particularly right or wrong. I see his point about the speaker not providing time for or presenting contravening arguments but then I don't believe the point was to start a debate or discussion at that specific time. I believe it was to present his and his fellow colleagues viewpoint on what has so far occurred, why it has failed, and how they themselves are being perceived in such discussions.

I believe this was said as a prelude to and desire for further open and honest discussion on how to address the issue on even and unbiased terms without recourse to accusations or base name calling to shame the opposition. I believe the examples of such presented in his speech were used to highlight his point at how that can be used by either side and helps nothing rather than as a specific attack on those present.

 

[nac386]

I don't read your conversations with other people.

Well then you missed the answers to all your questions. I'm not interested in repeating myself over and over just so that you don't have to read.

The Left is amazingly dishonest about this issue, yet you're trying to pretend this man is. Count this as dodge number one.

My exact words, that you even quoted, were, "They all do this." That includes the man speaking, and politicians on the Left.

 

[lfd0311]

Well then you missed the answers to all your questions. I'm not interested in repeating myself over and over just so that you don't have to read.




My exact words, that you even quoted, were, "They all do this." That includes the man speaking, and politicians on the Left.

Sooo.... what was so dishonest about what he said?

 

[nac386]

Sooo.... what was so dishonest about what he said?

Half-truths and intentional ignorance. Meaning he tells part of the story, using talking points that have always been used on that side of the aisle. Then he intentionally leaves out the rebuttals that have already been made to those points, which he would obviously be aware of.

I'll start with one for you here. Right from the beginning. Here is what he said:

I think if we were going to look seriously at school shootings and gun control, we would analyze things like "why do all mass shootings seem to take place in gun-free zones?" Wouldn't it be reasonable to test whether or not the efficacy of gun-free zones have actually achieved what their intended intent is.


"All mass shootings seem to take place in gun-free zones"? There was an armed SRO officer at the most recent school shooting. How could he possibly miss that fact that has been widely publicized and discussed?
He did not miss it. He was just more interested in making a hack political point than being honest.

 

[lfd0311]

Half-truths and intentional ignorance. Meaning he tells part of the story, using talking points that have always been used on that side of the aisle. Then he intentionally leaves out the rebuttals that have already been made to those points, which he would obviously be aware of.

I'll start with one for you here. Right from the beginning. Here is what he said:

I think if we were going to look seriously at school shootings and gun control, we would analyze things like "why do all mass shootings seem to take place in gun-free zones?" Wouldn't it be reasonable to test whether or not the efficacy of gun-free zones have actually achieved what their intended intent is.


"All mass shootings seem to take place in gun-free zones"? There was an armed SRO officer at the most recent school shooting. How could he possibly miss that fact that has been widely publicized and discussed?
He did not miss it. He was just more interested in making a hack political point than being honest.

Dude. He's telling half truths? The Police are allowed to carry guns everywhere, what does their presence in a gun free zone have to do with anything? The "Gun Free Zone" argument has absolutely nothing to do with the presence or absence of the Police. You obviously know and understand that, yet you're arguing it as a major point anyway, and pretending this guy is being dishonest. Come on now.

 

[phipps66]

Dude. He's telling half truths? The Police are allowed to carry guns everywhere, what does their presence in a gun free zone have to do with anything? The "Gun Free Zone" argument has absolutely nothing to do with the presence or absence of the Police. You obviously know and understand that, yet you're arguing it as a major point anyway, and pretending this guy is being dishonest. Come on now.

I think what he means is once there is a school resource officer on duty, with a gun, the school is no longer a gun free zone and would be (in theory) defended with deadly force.

 

[all caps]

Guy looks like he missed a critical stage of evolution

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I read the transcript.

https://voat.co/v/politics/2431517

Thanks. Seems more like a plea for mature and intelligent discussion than him laying out arguments. He makes some good points.

You seem to take issue with him saying that pro-2nd Amendment folks don't believe the grabbers are gonna stop at x, y, or z. Hard to refute that when we already have thousands of gun laws but apparently still have an unacceptable problem. If we ban bumpstocks and every state instituted background checks for private sales, and it doesn't eliminate (or significantly reduce) mass shootings, then what? The grabbers just gonna throw up their hands and say "Well, we tried."? They sure haven't after all of the past legislation has failed to meet their (unstated or vague) goals.

Just skimmed over the transcript, the guy is playing to his crowd. He says he does not believe Democrats will stop with just a few changes, he thinks if he gives up on background checks it won´t stop there. Thats stupid reasoning, so even if he thinks the idea is good he won´t do it because he fears Democrats will want more changes?

Stupid reasoning or an observation backed up by history?

 

[lfd0311]

I think what he means is once there is a school resource officer on duty, with a gun, the school is no longer a gun free zone and would be (in theory) defended with deadly force.

Ok, But that is still not what the "Gun Free Zone" thing is about, right? There aren't Police Officers stationed in 100% of "Gun Free Zones".

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I think what he means is once there is a school resource officer on duty, with a gun, the school is no longer a gun free zone and would be (in theory) defended with deadly force.

Gun-free obviously refers to non-cops & security. You know, the potential targets. The people actually prohibited from carrying their preferred means of self-defense.

 

[phipps66]

Gun-free obviously refers to non-cops & security. You know, the potential targets. The people actually prohibited from carrying their preferred means of self-defense.

I think I'm confused. Are you saying it's considered a gun free zone when normal people can't carry there? Of course a school would be. Do you mean a school, even with an officer there, is still a gun free zone because no one else can have a gun there? I think that's how I'm understanding what you're saying.

 

[lfd0311]

I think I'm confused. Are you saying it's considered a gun free zone when normal people can't carry there? Of course a school would be. Do you mean a school, even with an officer there, is still a gun free zone because no one else can have a gun there? I think that's how I'm understanding what you're saying.

Yes, that's what Gun Free Zone has always meant.

 

[nac386]

You seem to take issue with him saying that pro-2nd Amendment folks don't believe the grabbers are gonna stop at x, y, or z. Hard to refute that when we already have thousands of gun laws but apparently still have an unacceptable problem. If we ban bumpstocks and every state instituted background checks for private sales, and it doesn't eliminate (or significantly reduce) mass shootings, then what? The grabbers just gonna throw up their hands and say "Well, we tried."? They sure haven't after all of the past legislation has failed to meet their (unstated or vague) goals.

That's not what I take an issue with. I just take an issue with politicians being opportunistic and going on these long "look at me" rants filled with arguments that have already been addressed.

For example, saying that gun control doesn't work because Chicago has gun control and a high murder rate. That is not a sign that gun control, in general, cannot work. That is reducing a complicated situation down to something dumb and easily put on a bumper sticker or Meme.

60% of guns used in crimes in Chicago are not bought in Illonois. People leave the controlled area, go to nearby lesser controlled areas to buy guns, and bring them back.

If the majority of people that commit crimes are only able to get guns by going to an area that lets them, you could argue that the statistic there proves that the gun control does work, since the majority of guns used are coming from other areas. If you could not get guns easily in those other areas, where would the guns come from?

Now, you can debate that. That's fine. But to pretend that entire discussion does not exist is ridiculous and none of us should be okay with it. Our politicians dumb down arguments to something easily regurgitated, just like a meme. It's a terrible tactic, it creates a stupid voting base. Or at the very least, appeals directly to a stupid base.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

That's not what I take an issue with. I just take an issue with politicians being opportunistic and going on these long "look at me" rants filled with arguments that have already been addressed.

For example, saying that gun control doesn't work because Chicago has gun control and a high murder rate. That is not a sign that gun control, in general, cannot work. That is reducing a complicated situation down to something dumb and easily put on a bumper stick on Meme.

60% of guns used in crimes in Chicago are not bought in Illonoise. People leave the controlled area, go to nearby lesser controlled areas to buy guns, and bring them back.

If the majority of people that commit crimes are only able to get guns by going to a lesser- could argue that the statistic there proves that the gun control does work, since the majority of guns used are coming from other areas. If you could not get guns easily in those other areas, where would the guns come from?

Now, you can debate that. That's fine. But to pretend that entire discussion does not exist is ridiculous and none of us should be okay with it. Our politicians dumb down arguments to something easily regurgitated, just like a meme. It's a terrible tactic, it creates a stupid voting base. Or at the very least, appeals directly to a stupid base.

He also mentions entire countries instituting stricter laws and says it doesn't have the effect people are lead to believe. I don't know that's right or wrong, but it sure looks like you're the guy taking something out of context in order to fit your own narrative. To me he's saying that people aren't going to follow the law if they don't want to. I think that's an easy thing to agree with. So no, this concept really hasn't been addressed other than one side theorizing that background checks on all gun purchases would solve the problem (as they see it) and the other side saying criminals will find a way to get them regardless.

If that's all there is to it then count me in the latter camp. We can't keep drugs out of prisons for Christ fuckin' sake. I'm also not so ignorant on guns and technology that I don't know what an 80% Glock lower or 80% AR lower is. 3D-printing tech is only gonna get better. It's gonna take a lot more than background checks on private sales, don't you think?

 

[lfd0311]

60% of guns used in crimes in Chicago are not bought in Illonois. People leave the controlled area, go to nearby lesser controlled areas to buy guns, and bring them back.
.

No, dude, they don't. They either steal them from gun stores in the area (if you've ever been to the Chicago area the guns stores for miles are fortifed to extreme) or go out into Indiana or rural Western Ilinois and commit home invasions and get them there. The popular myth coming from the Left for the longest time has been that they go into Iowa and buy them at gun shows from private sellers despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of gun shows in Iowa (the State I live in BTW) won't allow non-FFL sellers into their venue. You also can't even get on the premise as a buyer without an Iowa permit to purchase which you have to show, at the door, to the Police, just to get in. The crime rate in Illinois is a problem because of Crime, not because of guns.

 

[Teppodama]

Look up prison zip guns and images of examples some time. If convicts can build usable firearms in prison for christ sakes, do you really think your gun laws are really going to do anything whatsoever to significantly control or even totally negate firearm related crimes and violence?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

You also can't even get on the premise as a buyer without an Iowa permit to purchase which you have to show, at the door, to the Police, just to get in.

That wasn't my experience going to a gun show in Iowa a couple years ago. Near as I can tell, a permit to purchase is required only for handguns.

 

[xcvbn]

I thought this was gonna be a speech I could get behind. Dude started off okay but went off his rocker 30s in by blaming everything on left politics.

It's never that simple. If not for the left AND the right we wouldn't be here today. They both made concessions, agreements compromises, etc along the way.

 

[Dolomite]

while there's a law on the books that hampers research on gun violence if it shows a link between gun ownership and bad outcomes.

Hampering the truth a bit here ourselves aren't we?

Just 3 years ago the CDC received $10,000,000 to create the study “Priorities For Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence”.

Here's what happens when a federal agency is told to do a study - but to leave out the political advocacy - they (The CDC) concluded with:

• Suicide (as opposed to homicide) accounts for most firearm deaths,
  
• Firearms, compared to other means of self-defense, are the safest of studied “self-protective strategies,”
• Felons who use guns very seldom obtain their guns by theft
• There is no evidence that gun restrictions reduce gun violence.