NexusFi: Find Your Edge


Home Menu

 





Yet another mass shooting


Discussion in Off-Topic

Updated
      Top Posters
    1. looks_one SMCJB with 103 posts (168 thanks)
    2. looks_two WoodyFox with 46 posts (54 thanks)
    3. looks_3 tturner86 with 37 posts (57 thanks)
    4. looks_4 Grodon with 28 posts (5 thanks)
      Best Posters
    1. looks_one bobwest with 3.5 thanks per post
    2. looks_two Pariah Carey with 3.5 thanks per post
    3. looks_3 Big Mike with 2.9 thanks per post
    4. looks_4 SMCJB with 1.6 thanks per post
    1. trending_up 107,489 views
    2. thumb_up 857 thanks given
    3. group 51 followers
    1. forum 558 posts
    2. attach_file 34 attachments




 
Search this Thread

Yet another mass shooting

  #331 (permalink)
 
MiniP's Avatar
 MiniP 
USA,USA
Market Wizard
 
Experience: Intermediate
Platform: NinjaTrader
Broker: NinjaTrader Brokerage
Trading: ES,
Posts: 1,157 since May 2017
Thanks Given: 1,109
Thanks Received: 2,943


artemiso View Post
Both of you are absolutely right. The person is the problem. The same goes for pedophiles, rapists, and drug dealers.

Your position is entirely valid. From an individualistic moral interpretation, FBI has no right to be seizing sites that serve adult pornography if they just happen to have some child pornography that someone else put up there. You are a legal, licensed consumer of adult pornography, you don't go around middle schools armed with child pornography, and you keep your pornography stash locked in safe. You only take your adult pornography out when you go out in the woods to go hunting. And the First Amendment protects your right of sexual expression. Why should you be deprived of your legal, adult pornography on your favorite site just because some crazy pedophile messes it up for all of us? You may argue that we should just treat the pedophile and leave the child pornography alone.

Unfortunately, the world doesn't work that way. There's no foolproof way to detect or psychiatrically treat a pedophile in the making. What we do is to outlaw date rape drugs and seize sites that serve child pornography. All of these are inanimate objects that facilitate the crime.



And what happens when they take one site down? Another one pops up. What happens when you confiscate drugs more pop up. What's going to happen when you take the guns away ? More will pop up. You know how easy it is to make a gun? This idea of banning an object is absurd and won't work. Anything that is illegal is able to be obtained or made.


Sent using the NexusFi mobile app

"Truth is not what you want it to be; it is what it is, and you must bend to its power or live a lie"-Miyamoto Musashi
Visit my NexusFi Trade Journal Reply With Quote

Can you help answer these questions
from other members on NexusFi?
My NT8 Volume Profile Split by Asian/Euro/Open
NinjaTrader
Are there any eval firms that allow you to sink to your …
Traders Hideout
Better Renko Gaps
The Elite Circle
NT7 Indicator Script Troubleshooting - Camarilla Pivots
NinjaTrader
The space time continuum and the dynamics of a financial …
Emini and Emicro Index
 
  #332 (permalink)
 artemiso 
New York, NY
 
Experience: Beginner
Platform: Vanguard 401k
Broker: Yahoo Finance
Trading: Mutual funds
Posts: 1,152 since Jul 2012
Thanks Given: 784
Thanks Received: 2,685


MiniP View Post
And what happens when they take one site down? Another one pops up. What happens when you confiscate drugs more pop up. What's going to happen when you take the guns away ? More will pop up. You know how easy it is to make a gun? This idea of banning an object is absurd and won't work. Anything that is illegal is able to be obtained or made.

This is completely speculative, what makes you think that the number of guns in circulation will increase or stay the same if they are restricted? It certainly didn't go that way for Australia, Japan, Singapore - and many other countries that have stricter gun laws. I'm sure our Australian and Japanese friends are just as capable of 3D printing their own guns whatnot.

Maybe I don't know about guns, but I do know how easy it is to construct a nuclear device. I was licensed to do so as far back as when I was in high school, and later on I went on to study physics in university. And I certainly think that we should control the export of deuterium, zirconium tubes, low boron concentration graphite, thorium and enriched uranium. Same goes with guns. Just because it's easy to build a nuclear weapon doesn't mean we give up and freely export nuclear grade materials all over the world.

Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
  #333 (permalink)
 
Rrrracer's Avatar
 Rrrracer 
On the road
Webinar Host
Trading Nomad
 
Experience: Intermediate
Platform: TradingView
Broker: Oanda
Trading: FX
Posts: 2,512 since Feb 2017
Thanks Given: 17,582
Thanks Received: 9,752



MiniP View Post
I would like to say i think its a great thing a handful of people can have a constructive conversation and not hurl insults at each other. Hope this continues.


This. Great thread folks. I love the recreational aspects of owning a gun, but that's just about the extent of my involvement with them. I'm learning a lot from this conversation, thanks.

Follow me on Twitter Visit my NexusFi Trade Journal Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
  #334 (permalink)
 
WoodyFox's Avatar
 WoodyFox 
Columbus, Ohio
 
Experience: Intermediate
Platform: NinjaTrader
Trading: Futures
Posts: 409 since May 2016
Thanks Given: 196
Thanks Received: 876


Rrrracer View Post
This. Great thread folks. I love the recreational aspects of owning a gun, but that's just about the extent of my involvement with them. I'm learning a lot from this conversation, thanks.

Yes, I always enjoy this argument too. The funny thing is, in the near future guns will be such an antique. There will be less primitive assault weapons that can be easily obtained or made. And then there will be the new argument that they should be banned? They just don't get it? People make the decision to kill, not the weapon! If I'm still around then, I will have to hear all my liberal friends say "But that's such the strawman argument"

So couldn't agree more with Rrrracer. Great argument, and always fun.

And remember..... Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one!

Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
  #335 (permalink)
 
xplorer's Avatar
 xplorer 
London UK
Site Moderator
 
Experience: Beginner
Platform: CQG
Broker: S5
Trading: Futures
Posts: 5,945 since Sep 2015
Thanks Given: 15,447
Thanks Received: 15,291


WoodyFox View Post
People make the decision to kill, not the weapon!

Whenever I see this comment I always revert to Eddie Izzard's "They say that guns don't kill people, people do, but guns help"


Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
  #336 (permalink)
 
WoodyFox's Avatar
 WoodyFox 
Columbus, Ohio
 
Experience: Intermediate
Platform: NinjaTrader
Trading: Futures
Posts: 409 since May 2016
Thanks Given: 196
Thanks Received: 876


Reply With Quote
  #337 (permalink)
 
WoodyFox's Avatar
 WoodyFox 
Columbus, Ohio
 
Experience: Intermediate
Platform: NinjaTrader
Trading: Futures
Posts: 409 since May 2016
Thanks Given: 196
Thanks Received: 876


Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
  #338 (permalink)
 
bobwest's Avatar
 bobwest 
Western Florida
Site Moderator
 
Experience: Advanced
Platform: Sierra Chart
Trading: ES, YM
Frequency: Several times daily
Duration: Minutes
Posts: 8,162 since Jan 2013
Thanks Given: 57,343
Thanks Received: 26,267


WoodyFox View Post
Yes, I always enjoy this argument too. The funny thing is, in the near future guns will be such an antique. There will be less primitive assault weapons that can be easily obtained or made. And then there will be the new argument that they should be banned? They just don't get it? People make the decision to kill, not the weapon! If I'm still around then, I will have to hear all my liberal friends say "But that's such the strawman argument"

So couldn't agree more with Rrrracer. Great argument, and always fun.

And remember..... Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one!

One more note....

No one has ever said that guns kill people all by themselves. Obviously, people kill people. Sometimes, some guns make it easy for them to kill more.

The guy in the Las Vegas shooting who used a modified AR15 that let him fire off automatic bursts into the crowd below killed a whole lot more people than he could have with a regular AR15, because of the rate of fire. A hunting rifle with a smaller magazine would have let him kill still fewer, because he would have been stopping to reload. This matters. There would have been a whole lot fewer dead people if it had not been so easy to kill them at a high rate.

Why do you think the military uses weapons with a high rate of fire? Because it makes it easier to kill people on the other side, why else?

The guy in New Zealand had a regualr AR15, which, with its semi-auto fire and big magazine, let him kill more people faster than a rifle with a smaller magazine (which would require more reloading time) and much more than a non-semi-auto rifle (slower rate of fire.)

If it were harder to get high-output firearms, it would be harder to use them. So it would be harder to massacre so many people before law enforcement can put a stop to it.

The guns didn't make any choices to kill people, they didn't make any choices at all. But their greater capability to deliver firepower made the shooters more deadly.

Of course, regular, non-killing people have every right to own a rifle for hunting or recreation. But if you're such a lousy shot that you need 30 rounds fired very fast to hit a deer you plan to eat, your family is going to starve. And yes, it's terrific fun to shoot up a target on a firing range with a high rate of fire rifle. I have done it and I like it too.

If I had to live by hunting, I wouldn't need 30 freaking shots to hit something, nor would anyone else. If I wanted to go to the range and shoot up some targets, I could do it without high-capacity semi-auto. Maybe it wouldn't be as fun, but maybe my right to have fun is less important than some totally innocent person's right to stay alive. Maybe my recreation isn't so damn important if that's what we compare it to.

The most tragic thing is that even small changes would matter. The guy who killed those people in an African-American church was a convicted felon with a record. The background check with the dealer was held up due to some delay, and the dealer then legally sold him the gun he wanted. This is just an error in the law, because it doesn't require the background check's results to actually be in the dealer's hand with a positive result before the sale can go through. (After three days it's OK to sell whether anything came back or not.) Likewise, you can buy a firearm of any type at a trade show and there will be no background check at all.

Is any of this even slightly rational, considering the harm that the wrong person can do, and considering how small the inconvenience of changing it would be to non-violent people? I understand that a majority of even the NRA's members approve of better background checks, and why would they not? We're not talking outlawing these guns here, we're talking being careful about who gets to buy them. And yes, they could get around it -- but why not make it at least a little harder? It would matter.

Even small, obviously worthwhile changes that most people in this country favor in polling can't go through, probably because politicians fear the gun lobby and its money. The gun lobby wants to sell more guns -- not itself a bad thing, but it shouldn't govern our policy or laws. Public safety should figure in too. It also has become a cultural/social/political issue, instead of a matter of trying to make it harder for a few people to kill a lot of others.

With this, I guess I'm done. Sometimes a conversation will affect people's opinions, sometimes it won't. All I'm sure I've done in this thread is that my fingers have gotten tired typing stuff that I think people of many persuasions should be able to agree on.

Oh well.

Bob.

Reply With Quote
  #339 (permalink)
 
WoodyFox's Avatar
 WoodyFox 
Columbus, Ohio
 
Experience: Intermediate
Platform: NinjaTrader
Trading: Futures
Posts: 409 since May 2016
Thanks Given: 196
Thanks Received: 876


bobwest View Post
One more note....

No one has ever said that guns kill people all by themselves. Obviously, people kill people. Sometimes, some guns make it easy for them to kill more.

The guy in the Las Vegas shooting who used a modified AR15 that let him fire off automatic bursts into the crowd below killed a whole lot more people than he could have with a regular AR15, because of the rate of fire. A hunting rifle with a smaller magazine would have let him kill still fewer, because he would have been stopping to reload. This matters. There would have been a whole lot fewer dead people if it had not been so easy to kill them at a high rate.

Why do you think the military uses weapons with a high rate of fire? Because it makes it easier to kill people on the other side, why else?

The guy in New Zealand had a regualr AR15, which, with its semi-auto fire and big magazine, let him kill more people faster than a rifle with a smaller magazine (which would require more reloading time) and much more than a non-semi-auto rifle (slower rate of fire.)

If it were harder to get high-output firearms, it would be harder to use them. So it would be harder to massacre so many people before law enforcement can put a stop to it.

The guns didn't make any choices to kill people, they didn't make any choices at all. But their greater capability to deliver firepower made the shooters more deadly.

Of course, regular, non-killing people have every right to own a rifle for hunting or recreation. But if you're such a lousy shot that you need 30 rounds fired very fast to hit a deer you plan to eat, your family is going to starve. And yes, it's terrific fun to shoot up a target on a firing range with a high rate of fire rifle. I have done it and I like it too.

If I had to live by hunting, I wouldn't need 30 freaking shots to hit something, nor would anyone else. If I wanted to go to the range and shoot up some targets, I could do it without high-capacity semi-auto. Maybe it wouldn't be as fun, but maybe my right to have fun is less important than some totally innocent person's right to stay alive. Maybe my recreation isn't so damn important if that's what we compare it to.

The most tragic thing is that even small changes would matter. The guy who killed those people in an African-American church was a convicted felon with a record. The background check with the dealer was held up due to some delay, and the dealer then legally sold him the gun he wanted. This is just an error in the law, because it doesn't require the background check's results to actually be in the dealer's hand with a positive result before the sale can go through. (After three days it's OK to sell whether anything came back or not.) Likewise, you can buy a firearm of any type at a trade show and there will be no background check at all.

Is any of this even slightly rational, considering the harm that the wrong person can do, and considering how small the inconvenience of changing it would be to non-violent people? I understand that a majority of even the NRA's members approve of better background checks, and why would they not? We're not talking outlawing these guns here, we're talking being careful about who gets to buy them. And yes, they could get around it -- but why not make it at least a little harder? It would matter.

Even small, obviously worthwhile changes that most people in this country favor in polling can't go through, probably because politicians fear the gun lobby and its money. The gun lobby wants to sell more guns -- not itself a bad thing, but it shouldn't govern our policy or laws. Public safety should figure in too. It also has become a cultural/social/political issue, instead of a matter of trying to make it harder for a few people to kill a lot of others.

With this, I guess I'm done. Sometimes a conversation will affect people's opinions, sometimes it won't. All I'm sure I've done in this thread is that my fingers have gotten tired typing stuff that I think people of many persuasions should be able to agree on.

Oh well.

Bob.

I think most peeps agree on some types of gun control. So were not to far apart.

The funny thing is, I don't even own a gun, don't like shooting them, and certainly would have trouble pulling the trigger on another living creature. Only if it was to protect family or friends.

Just like in trading. You can have all the filters you want and you will still have losing trades. So the question is, what filters and how many do we need?

That's the million dollar question!

Reply With Quote
Thanked by:
  #340 (permalink)
 
bobwest's Avatar
 bobwest 
Western Florida
Site Moderator
 
Experience: Advanced
Platform: Sierra Chart
Trading: ES, YM
Frequency: Several times daily
Duration: Minutes
Posts: 8,162 since Jan 2013
Thanks Given: 57,343
Thanks Received: 26,267



WoodyFox View Post
I think most peeps agree on some types of gun control. So were not to far apart.

The funny thing is, I don't even own a gun, don't like shooting them, and certainly would have trouble pulling the trigger on another living creature. Only if it was to protect family or friends.

Just like in trading. You can have all the filters you want and you will still have losing trades. So the question is, what filters and how many do we need?

That's the million dollar question!

Well, there you go. I think that's exactly the question.

Something would be better than nothing, and would be a place to start. Anything would help.

Bob.

Reply With Quote
Thanked by:




Last Updated on December 21, 2023


© 2024 NexusFi™, s.a., All Rights Reserved.
Av Ricardo J. Alfaro, Century Tower, Panama City, Panama, Ph: +507 833-9432 (Panama and Intl), +1 888-312-3001 (USA and Canada)
All information is for educational use only and is not investment advice. There is a substantial risk of loss in trading commodity futures, stocks, options and foreign exchange products. Past performance is not indicative of future results.
About Us - Contact Us - Site Rules, Acceptable Use, and Terms and Conditions - Privacy Policy - Downloads - Top
no new posts