Death is too good for this piece of trash. I hope he lives a long life in prison where he is raped on a daily basis for the rest of his miserable life.
than just delete the thread. If I can't start a thread about the 2 people up to run our country in a matter of months, then I don't see how people can talk about gun control, which has just as much vitrol.
If you can't come on this thread, provide news updates, and talk about what happened at the school, then move on to something else.
What should this thread turn into? It's inherently political. Maybe it shouldn't be posted in the first place, but once it is, hell's bells.
There's plenty to talk about. Remember the Boston bombing? That thread was amazing. Constant updates, good feedback, very little bickering, almost no politics that I can remember.
What should this thread turn into? It's inherently political. Maybe it shouldn't be posted in the first place, but once it is, hell's bells.
I don't know maybe information, sadness, outrage, shock, the usual responses to something awful. But why immediately try and make points about pro or con on gun control? Do you really think this will be the thread that changes minds?
I dont know how to fix it but this shit doesnt happen anywhere else.
Why does it happen here more than anywhere else in the world. The study below compares us to 36 other countries combined.
The results are staggering. School Shootings Around the World - ( New Window )
Those aren't staggering results. Most of those countries 1) aren't even on the economic scale that we are, and 2) do not have a population close to ours, 3) and many of them do not have a modern society like we do.
There are changes we can make, but these kinds of comparisons are useless and only serve as a red herring argument.
Eric made it very clear that political threads and posts aren't tolerated. His rule, not mine. I'm all for political threads, but if I can't discuss the debate on Monday why should you be able to tell me banning guns will make America better?
The for/against gun control posts on this thread Â
When it's a Muslim, the usual cast of characters parades their xenophobic ignorant bullshit how this country is under attack. When it's a white Christian male, it's always "can't we just keep the politics out of a tragedy?"
When it's a Muslim, the usual cast of characters parades their xenophobic ignorant bullshit how this country is under attack. When it's a white Christian male, it's always "can't we just keep the politics out of a tragedy?"
Is it a white christian male? Maybe you're projecting your own prejudices since I haven't read one thing about the race or ethnicity of the shooter.
nothing like jumping to conclusions, so typical, people just can't help themselves.
When it's a Muslim, the usual cast of characters parades their xenophobic ignorant bullshit how this country is under attack. When it's a white Christian male, it's always "can't we just keep the politics out of a tragedy?"
Not sure if this is directed to me or not, but I didn't know until your very post who the culprit was. I scrolled up and saw an earlier post that suggested it was a teenager, and figured it was......a teenager. I actually didn't think ethnicity or religion until you brought it up.
When it's a Muslim, the usual cast of characters parades their xenophobic ignorant bullshit how this country is under attack. When it's a white Christian male, it's always "can't we just keep the politics out of a tragedy?"
Show me where I posted anywhere in a thread that out country is under attack, or even posted anything in those types of threads?
I'm just saying, some think prayers help, others think taking a concrete stand on various issues helps.
And this thread is not the place to do that, per the site owner. Do you believe you will influence a bunch of BBI posters to enact meaningful change? You can't be that clueless. If you want to do that, call your representatives, run for office, or start going door to door.
On here - respect the rules of the site and shut up about your political views.
When it's a Muslim, the usual cast of characters parades their xenophobic ignorant bullshit how this country is under attack. When it's a white Christian male, it's always "can't we just keep the politics out of a tragedy?"
Who are these same people? The "same people" argument... usually exists in your head. Also, I'm unaware of shooters in this country creating tragedies touting a Christian faith. Serious question... who are these white, Christian male shooters? And if you can find them, was their religion a driver of their shooting or just an ancillary fact about them that was not related to their action? I think there has been 1 abortion clinic shooting in the last couple of years that would qualify... and that's all I can think of (maybe I'm wrong).
It's why I don't contribute. 'The company line', we're a sports site...blah blah blah. Bullshit.
There used to be some good and interesting discussions here. I wish they were still allowed. Sadly though too many people would complain to Eric. Can you really blame him for running out of patience and not wanting to deal with baby sitting a bunch of adults.
Did you pay attention to the discussions on BBI? A significant percentage, even a majority at times are non sports related. It's always been that way. BBI is a hybrid message board. Yes we are brought together by our Giants fandom. But it's a widely varied community discussion.
Did you pay attention to the discussions on BBI? A significant percentage, even a majority at times are non sports related. It's always been that way. BBI is a hybrid message board. Yes we are brought together by our Giants fandom. But it's a widely varied community discussion.
I do - and oddly enough, I was taught what censorship was in grade school, unlike some others.
sad. once again, innocent people gunned down, likely in a cold random fashion. doubly sad when the victims are kids. triply sad when you know it is going to happen again and again and again and people aren't willing to make any changes to prevent these incidents from occurring, that it's considered an accepted by product of living in a "free country".
but I truly believe we have come to this as a result of a the glorification of violence - yeah we all love our action movies and TV shows and video games, but I believe we've desensitized ourselves (and our children) to the violence and have basically shown it as ok and "not real" to a degree.
Also, the media gives so much attention to these losers who commit these heinous acts that they achieve their mission of letting the word know how miserable they are and whatever their motive is.
and don't want to go back to that outdated way of thinking. Being glorified in the media and possibly being remembered definitely plays a role with some of these people.
Whoever first came up with the line we don't have a gun problem in America, we have a mental health problem fucking nailed it.
but I truly believe we have come to this as a result of a the glorification of violence - yeah we all love our action movies and TV shows and video games, but I believe we've desensitized ourselves (and our children) to the violence and have basically shown it as ok and "not real" to a degree.
Also, the media gives so much attention to these losers who commit these heinous acts that they achieve their mission of letting the word know how miserable they are and whatever their motive is.
Just a thought
so if you feel that these are the factors, what is your fix? do you ban/regulate all violent entertainment content? do you ban/force the media to not mention the names of the killers?
When it's a Muslim, the usual cast of characters parades their xenophobic ignorant bullshit how this country is under attack. When it's a white Christian male, it's always "can't we just keep the politics out of a tragedy?"
+1
RE: I don't think it has to do with movies or games Â
and don't want to go back to that outdated way of thinking. Being glorified in the media and possibly being remembered definitely plays a role with some of these people.
Whoever first came up with the line we don't have a gun problem in America, we have a mental health problem fucking nailed it.
speaking as an outsider, I think America has a gun problem AND a mental health problem. mentally ill people + easy access to powerful firearms and infatuation with firearms = much higher incidence of mass shootings.
I agree. There are certainly a number of gun related issues that could be focused on and improved, but I don't think it is the #1 issue like so many (and I in the past) believe when these things happen. You don't go into an elementary school or a mall and shoot up strangers without having something seriously disconnected in your head.
as any political election thread is banned. Invariably we have about a half dozen ultra gun control freaks who get on the soap box and want to ban the unbannable. And then we have about half dozen not quite as fanatical gun rights advocates.
The two sides argue over the talking points every time there is an incident. It is divisive. It is useless. What is the point?
but I truly believe we have come to this as a result of a the glorification of violence - yeah we all love our action movies and TV shows and video games, but I believe we've desensitized ourselves (and our children) to the violence and have basically shown it as ok and "not real" to a degree.
Also, the media gives so much attention to these losers who commit these heinous acts that they achieve their mission of letting the word know how miserable they are and whatever their motive is.
Just a thought
so if you feel that these are the factors, what is your fix? do you ban/regulate all violent entertainment content? do you ban/force the media to not mention the names of the killers?
I don't have an answer Les. In our country we have great privileges. With great privileges comes great responsibility. I think we have collectively failed when it comes to responsibly managing our media and entertainment, and making sure we take care of those who need taking care of. I wish there was a simple answer. I was just making an observation.
This frees us up to discuss political issues (like gun control) if we like that kind of discussion.
Personally I think it would be horrible if we had to ban threads on newsworthy events as I enjoy them very much. The discussion of political stands related to that news is easy enough to stay out of if you want to, and these threads often turn into a great stream of information about the incidents.
Why is being against Islamic extremism and morons who shoot up schools mutually exclusive? And does this event cancel out the dozens of recent attacks committed by morons in the name of their faith?
RE: RE: I don't think it has to do with movies or games Â
and don't want to go back to that outdated way of thinking. Being glorified in the media and possibly being remembered definitely plays a role with some of these people.
Whoever first came up with the line we don't have a gun problem in America, we have a mental health problem fucking nailed it.
speaking as an outsider, I think America has a gun problem AND a mental health problem. mentally ill people + easy access to powerful firearms and infatuation with firearms = much higher incidence of mass shootings.
Actually Les, that is incorrect.
Western europe, with ~ the same population as the united States and all of them first world countries, the incidence is virtually the same. That was a few years back. I would dare to opine mass shootings appear to be on the uptick in Western Europe.
RE: RE: RE: I don't think it has to do with movies or games Â
and don't want to go back to that outdated way of thinking. Being glorified in the media and possibly being remembered definitely plays a role with some of these people.
Whoever first came up with the line we don't have a gun problem in America, we have a mental health problem fucking nailed it.
speaking as an outsider, I think America has a gun problem AND a mental health problem. mentally ill people + easy access to powerful firearms and infatuation with firearms = much higher incidence of mass shootings.
Actually Les, that is incorrect.
Western europe, with ~ the same population as the united States and all of them first world countries, the incidence is virtually the same. That was a few years back. I would dare to opine mass shootings appear to be on the uptick in Western Europe.
That's not exactly correct.
Between 2009-2013 there were 38 mass shooting incidents (3+ people shot) in the US. That's .12 incident per 1M people. When you compare to other westernized nations with permissive laws, the stats are fairly similiar. Some nations, Finland for instance, have a higher occurrence when adjusted for population.
However, comparisons to restricted gun laws tells a different story. Nations like the UK, Netherland, France and Canada who have restrictive gun laws and similar demographics have a fraction of the mass shooting instances we see here.
I realize that people on either side of the argument tend to cherry pick stats to support their bias, but this is pretty cut and dry.
Why is being against Islamic extremism and morons who shoot up schools mutually exclusive? And does this event cancel out the dozens of recent attacks committed by morons in the name of their faith?
There have been dozens of examples of Islamic extremists recently?
Why is being against Islamic extremism and morons who shoot up schools mutually exclusive? And does this event cancel out the dozens of recent attacks committed by morons in the name of their faith?
There have been dozens of examples of Islamic extremists recently?
Did you just wake from a year long nap?
Is it not possible to simultaneously care about terrorism and school violence? Or are we allowed to try and solve one problem at a time?
TOWNVILLE, S.C. — A volunteer firefighter who responded to the shooting at an elementary school Wednesday is said to have helped apprehend the shooter.
Jamie Brock, a 30-year veteran, reportedly “engaged the suspect and at that point took him down,” said Anderson County Emergency Management Director Taylor Jones.
Brock was able to hold the suspect until law enforcement arrived on scene. The 14-year-old shooter never entered the school, and was apprehended at the school’s playground, reported WISTV.
“There were some heroes here today,” Rev. Kyle Caudell, a chaplain for the local fire department told Greenville Online. “It could have been a ton worse.”
Two students and a teacher were shot; they were all transported to the hospital following the shooting. Before the shooting at Townville Elementary about 1:45 p.m., the teen gunned down his 47-year-old father, Jeffrey Osborne, at their home about 2 miles from the school, authorities told Associated Press.
Nice Job.
This is sad....why drives these kids to do this? Â
And access to guns certainly adds to the carnage...
keeping guns from mentally ill people....should be a law. I thought it was....
Keeping guns from 14 should be a law....which it is a law, no?
Laws are not the issue.
What is occurring in our society that drives kids to do this????...they tend to have less hardship in life....so i suspect when hardships occurs...they have a harder time dealing with it. I would blame gradma for wiping my son's ass...but I kept kicking it until he grew up.
And for those who think violence is a US problem .....need to travel more.
If anyone thinks removing the guns from lawful people will resolve this issue......think again. Guns protect lawful citizens....without them will cause massive crime, unlawfulness. Go to South Chicago.....guns are unlawful there.....but yet gun crime is rampant and the citizen are prisoners in their own community
RE: This is sad....why drives these kids to do this? Â
And access to guns certainly adds to the carnage...
keeping guns from mentally ill people....should be a law. I thought it was....
Keeping guns from 14 should be a law....which it is a law, no?
Laws are not the issue.
What is occurring in our society that drives kids to do this????...they tend to have less hardship in life....so i suspect when hardships occurs...they have a harder time dealing with it. I would blame gradma for wiping my son's ass...but I kept kicking it until he grew up.
And for those who think violence is a US problem .....need to travel more.
If anyone thinks removing the guns from lawful people will resolve this issue......think again. Guns protect lawful citizens....without them will cause massive crime, unlawfulness. Go to South Chicago.....guns are unlawful there.....but yet gun crime is rampant and the citizen are prisoners in their own community
The fly in your soup, of course, is the fact what while guns may be unlawful in Chicago, they are plentiful and rather easy to obtain in neighboring states. This is the same problem NY is facing with guns pouring in from Virginia.
And of course removing guns out of the equation will make folks safer. They already have in places like Canada, and France, and Germany. As referenced above.
This notion that citizens require guns to protect themselves is delusion. What's more likely is your gun being used to comitt a crime. As we've seen time and time again.
Just like 95% of drivers think they are better than average drivers, gun owners never think their gun will be used to hurt anybody. But then, shit happens. They lose their mind, the get angry, their wife has an affair, they make a mistake in handling it, they forget to lock it up etc.
It happens every day. And it happens to experienced gun owners and it happens to previously law abiding citizens every single day in this country.
YOU think it will never be YOU, but that provides slim solace to the rest of us.
that removing guns will make people safer is true.
yes, it may make them safer from gun violence, but the UK is not safer from violent crime (and I understand the different ways US and UK classify violent crime) and they have far more restrictive gun laws, and little gun violence.
I know this isn't reason for keeping the status quo for gun laws, but sometimes I think what would these monsters do if they didn't have guns. Do some of you think they'd simply decide, oh well I was about to murder some children at a school or mow down the people inside a predominantly black church, but since I don't have guns I'm just going to keep on living my life?
No, they'll find other ways of wreaking havoc, maybe even worse.
Some examples, and this conversation gets tiresome, are Columbine. Columbine was supposed to be a bombing, where the whackos only used planned to use guns to shoot the fleeing victims, but they thankfully wired the bomb wrong and it never detonated. that tragedy could have been infinitely worse than it was.
Boston Marathon only took pressure cookers.
Oklahoma City was fertilizer infused bombs
Bath all the way back in the 1920's in Maine killed more than 40 people including more kids than Sandy Hook was a bomb.
bombings are far more lethal than gun violence and again, not suggesting it's a reason to keep the status quo, but taking away the tool of destruction, doesn't change the intent and I'm not sure it will reduce much in the way of mass shootings.
the biggest benefit you'd probably get from removing all guns would be accidental deaths (pure guess by me) just based on crimes committed with legal vs illegal guns.
which means, more often than not I am going to use my gun to commit a crime, or to your other analogy, get in my car and get into an accident. More often than not, IMO, means 51% of the time, no?
You take away all guns, including the illegal guns, then sign me up. But you can't, so it won't and shouldn't happen. I don't even use my firearm for home protection but i'm sure as fuck not giving it back to the government knowing that criminals won't be doing the same.
Its a very unrealistic, and frankly, dumb idea to "ban" guns. It won't work, it can't work, and you won't be able to control the ones that are left on the streets of which there are tons.
which means, more often than not I am going to use my gun to commit a crime, or to your other analogy, get in my car and get into an accident. More often than not, IMO, means 51% of the time, no?
You take away all guns, including the illegal guns, then sign me up. But you can't, so it won't and shouldn't happen. I don't even use my firearm for home protection but i'm sure as fuck not giving it back to the government knowing that criminals won't be doing the same.
Its a very unrealistic, and frankly, dumb idea to "ban" guns. It won't work, it can't work, and you won't be able to control the ones that are left on the streets of which there are tons.
I wasn't acussing you.
I meant to say, it's more likely that the gun will go off inadvertantly through mishandling, be stolen, found by a child, or a myriad of other terrible things than you ever successfully defending yourself from home invaders.
Have any cop buddies who've had marital problems? If so, what did the department do once they found out?
You think that's because the PD thought they'd suddenly break bad and rob a bank?
RE: RE: RE: RE: I don't think it has to do with movies or games Â
and don't want to go back to that outdated way of thinking. Being glorified in the media and possibly being remembered definitely plays a role with some of these people.
Whoever first came up with the line we don't have a gun problem in America, we have a mental health problem fucking nailed it.
speaking as an outsider, I think America has a gun problem AND a mental health problem. mentally ill people + easy access to powerful firearms and infatuation with firearms = much higher incidence of mass shootings.
Actually Les, that is incorrect.
Western europe, with ~ the same population as the united States and all of them first world countries, the incidence is virtually the same. That was a few years back. I would dare to opine mass shootings appear to be on the uptick in Western Europe.
That's not exactly correct.
Between 2009-2013 there were 38 mass shooting incidents (3+ people shot) in the US. That's .12 incident per 1M people. When you compare to other westernized nations with permissive laws, the stats are fairly similiar. Some nations, Finland for instance, have a higher occurrence when adjusted for population.
However, comparisons to restricted gun laws tells a different story. Nations like the UK, Netherland, France and Canada who have restrictive gun laws and similar demographics have a fraction of the mass shooting instances we see here.
I realize that people on either side of the argument tend to cherry pick stats to support their bias, but this is pretty cut and dry.
the jarring number there is 38 rampage shootings where the next closest country Germany has 3. even on a per capita basis (which is omitted - only fatalities per capita are highlighted) the US is a huge outlier.
on top of fatalities there are people who are disabled, injured or permanently psychologically scarred by witnessing a rampage incident which results in significant loss of productivity, health care costs, and leading to a culture of fear and anger.
you are saying that its more likely to cause harm either on purpose or accidentally than it is to not harm someone if you are a gun owner? How do those numbers even add up?
Using a round number of 300 million guns in the US, that would mean there's over 150 million cases of gun violence...
Listen, I get the other side of things, if there was an easy way to make them all go away or make all illegal guns disappear out of thin air I think most people would be for that. But it just isn't possible. If all of a sudden law abiding citizens no longer have that right, you don't think potential chaos could ensue? What would stop anyone from coming into my home or your home?
and while we're at it, let's make the drugs illegal. They're causing lots of problems and they're all over the place. I haven't looked at the stats, but they might even cause more deaths than the guns do (which is enough as it is).
And it's probably my fault. Posting from my phone.
I've never owned a gun, but my dad did. One night - I must've been about 10 or 11 - he decided it was the right time to teach me how to clean a gun. So he takes it out, lays it over a chamis towel and takes out the mag. He then starts explain what each part is and what it does. As he's doing this, he explains how to grip and how pulling the trigger will draw the hammer back and so on. He pulls the trigger and the gun goes off. Fires a round right through our duplex sheetrock into the house next door. The knucklehead forgot about the round in the chamber. This is guy who served almost 20 years as a Staff Sgt., had over 2000 career jumps (who's also afraid of heights - dafuq?). Had more weapons training than most gun owners and he still fucked up. Luckily, the couple next door was out doing the dinner/movie thing and we're close friends of the family, because the round went through their livingroom sofa.
So I don't own a gun. I've also never had to battle home invaders.
And no, I don't think it guns were restricted that all hell breaks loose. Absurd.
we just had riots for a shooting before facts came out, and 70% of the rioters didn't even live in that city. You think if legal gun owners all of a sudden had to give back their guns that chaos wouldn't ensue? I think you severely underestimate the power of the unknown.
you are saying that its more likely to cause harm either on purpose or accidentally than it is to not harm someone if you are a gun owner? How do those numbers even add up?
Using a round number of 300 million guns in the US, that would mean there's over 150 million cases of gun violence...
Let me guess. You're not a math major. :)
As simply put as is possible - a firearm adds risk. Period. Dead stop. Risk that does not exist if there is no firearm.
There is ZERO risk of one of my guns ever being fired because I own ZERO guns. Regardless of how safe a gun owner may be, their risk can NEVER be ZERO.
What the actual risk is for an individual gun owner relies on countless factors.
as any political election thread is banned. Invariably we have about a half dozen ultra gun control freaks who get on the soap box and want to ban the unbannable. And then we have about half dozen not quite as fanatical gun rights advocates.
The two sides argue over the talking points every time there is an incident. It is divisive. It is useless. What is the point?
I agree, and I agree with banning political threads. There are plenty of other forums you can go to and yell about your views.
you are saying that its more likely to cause harm either on purpose or accidentally than it is to not harm someone if you are a gun owner? How do those numbers even add up?
Using a round number of 300 million guns in the US, that would mean there's over 150 million cases of gun violence...
Let me guess. You're not a math major. :)
As simply put as is possible - a firearm adds risk. Period. Dead stop. Risk that does not exist if there is no firearm.
There is ZERO risk of one of my guns ever being fired because I own ZERO guns. Regardless of how safe a gun owner may be, their risk can NEVER be ZERO.
What the actual risk is for an individual gun owner relies on countless factors.
No, i'm quite good at math though and I was responding to another posters comments, not making up my own. I fully realize having no guns = no risk, I simply did not argue otherwise so you should probably re-read my post that states that getting rid of all guns period would be the only way this works, yet that can't happen. And since it can't happen, we have this lovely debate.
you are saying that its more likely to cause harm either on purpose or accidentally than it is to not harm someone if you are a gun owner? How do those numbers even add up?
Using a round number of 300 million guns in the US, that would mean there's over 150 million cases of gun violence...
Let me guess. You're not a math major. :)
As simply put as is possible - a firearm adds risk. Period. Dead stop. Risk that does not exist if there is no firearm.
There is ZERO risk of one of my guns ever being fired because I own ZERO guns. Regardless of how safe a gun owner may be, their risk can NEVER be ZERO.
What the actual risk is for an individual gun owner relies on countless factors.
Ok what are you doing with all the millions of illegal, unmarked guns in the US?
you are saying that its more likely to cause harm either on purpose or accidentally than it is to not harm someone if you are a gun owner? How do those numbers even add up?
Using a round number of 300 million guns in the US, that would mean there's over 150 million cases of gun violence...
Listen, I get the other side of things, if there was an easy way to make them all go away or make all illegal guns disappear out of thin air I think most people would be for that. But it just isn't possible. If all of a sudden law abiding citizens no longer have that right, you don't think potential chaos could ensue? What would stop anyone from coming into my home or your home?
No. He's saying it's more likely to cause harm than to successfully use it to defend yourself.
By far the most likely outcome is that it never hurts anyone.
But between the extremes: It harms and innocent and it saves your life- the former is much more likely. It isn't all that difficult to understand.
you are saying that its more likely to cause harm either on purpose or accidentally than it is to not harm someone if you are a gun owner? How do those numbers even add up?
Using a round number of 300 million guns in the US, that would mean there's over 150 million cases of gun violence...
Let me guess. You're not a math major. :)
As simply put as is possible - a firearm adds risk. Period. Dead stop. Risk that does not exist if there is no firearm.
There is ZERO risk of one of my guns ever being fired because I own ZERO guns. Regardless of how safe a gun owner may be, their risk can NEVER be ZERO.
What the actual risk is for an individual gun owner relies on countless factors.
Ok what are you doing with all the millions of illegal, unmarked guns in the US?
Don't worry Dep, all the criminals will turn them in, nothing to worry about.
I like Uconn. Not here to disparage his decision to own a gun. Story wasn't intended to change anyone's mind. Just to point out how even the most well intentioned person in possession of a firearm, who's had significant training, can make a mistake that can cost someone their life.
In comment 13147264 section125 said:
Quote:
I agree, and I agree with banning political threads. There are plenty of other forums you can go to and yell about your views.
The idea of banning topics that one prefers not to read will never not be bizarre.
I'm continually amazed that the concept of "don't click on a thread/close a thread that does not appeal to you" (like I do with IMV stupid Fantasy threads) eludes the more delicate among us.
Yeah, there are "plenty of other" political forums. And fantasy forums. And movie forums. And breaking news forums. And video game forums, etc. etc.
Ok what are you doing with all the millions of illegal, unmarked guns in the US?
Me? Nothing. Those who own them own most of the risk. Most of that risk is to suicide, btw. Vast majority of gun fatalities in the U.S. are suicides.
So lets say this is even remotely true. You're ok with million of illegal guns in the US. So lets reverse course here. We do ban guns or get rid of them (not even possible by the way).... you dont think criminals, gangs, or even your every day citizens wont get a hold of them? Just because they are "illegal" does not mean they go away. Little bit of a fantasy world you live in, huh?
I do not own a gun and never will. However, I feel safer knowing that my neighbors can own them. I am a believer in less guns = more crime. Not necessarily mor emurders, but definitely increase in crime.
RE: I don't think it has to do with movies or games Â
and don't want to go back to that outdated way of thinking. Being glorified in the media and possibly being remembered definitely plays a role with some of these people.
Whoever first came up with the line we don't have a gun problem in America, we have a mental health problem fucking nailed it.
Combine that with notions that anyone can feel aggrieved and slighted when they don't feel their lives are perfect.
My mom was the last of nine children from the depression era. She used to say hat they were so busy trying it survive no one worried about the stupid shit we do. Basically idle hands do the devils work. We have so much and appreciate so little.
Also the idiocy that a pill will cure whatever ails us mentally is dangerous and myopic
When it's a Muslim, the usual cast of characters parades their xenophobic ignorant bullshit how this country is under attack. When it's a white Christian male, it's always "can't we just keep the politics out of a tragedy?"
The important difference is that the Muslim murderers are using mainstream current teachings of the religion. The Christian ones are not supported by any of the currently accepted doctrine or supported by the institutions of Christianity. I know it's hard for some people to believe that religious beliefs and teachings have consequences in our mostly secular society, but there is a major difference between Islam and other major religions, which clearly plays out on a daily basis around the world.
Me? Nothing. Those who own them own most of the risk. Most of that risk is to suicide, btw. Vast majority of gun fatalities in the U.S. are suicides.
So lets say this is even remotely true. You're ok with million of illegal guns in the US. So lets reverse course here. We do ban guns or get rid of them (not even possible by the way).... you dont think criminals, gangs, or even your every day citizens wont get a hold of them? Just because they are "illegal" does not mean they go away. Little bit of a fantasy world you live in, huh?
I do not own a gun and never will. However, I feel safer knowing that my neighbors can own them. I am a believer in less guns = more crime. Not necessarily mor emurders, but definitely increase in crime.
Let's say 'what' is remotely true? The gun suicide rate is well documented. And a simple web search will show you the likelihood of death by cause - heart disease and cancer are top-2 - almost half - death by auto accident at about 5%, death by firearm at about 2% and even there - 2-1 ration of suicides to other causes.
I know there is a lot of fear mongering out there, that we are in imminent danger of being shot always, but it simply isn't true - and it's VERY easy to find the raw data on that.
Sure, I would love it if America was sane with our gun laws, but we're not! No country is perfect - America has shown that at least in the short term, we are NOT changing ANY meaningful gun laws - we have proven that as a nation, we love guns MORE than we love people, even more than we love Children - it's not that I wouldn't prefer the laws to be more safe and sensible, it's simply that it is not who we are, or where we live.
So I don't own a gun, and I will never be shot. (statistically speaking)
On the one hand you say that fear of death by firearm is overblown and on the other claim that America loves guns more than they love kids.
By your logic we also love cars more that we love kids.
Every day we all manage risk in our lives- which is what you are talking about. The fact that we allow private ownership of firearms is just another of those risks that we manage...just like most of us choose driving as our main mode of transportation over much less dangerous methods.
Suggesting we "love guns more than we love kids" is incredibly disingenuous and adds nothing constructive to the conversation.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: you are way off base Â
On the one hand you say that fear of death by firearm is overblown and on the other claim that America loves guns more than they love kids.
By your logic we also love cars more that we love kids.
Every day we all manage risk in our lives- which is what you are talking about. The fact that we allow private ownership of firearms is just another of those risks that we manage...just like most of us choose driving as our main mode of transportation over much less dangerous methods.
Suggesting we "love guns more than we love kids" is incredibly disingenuous and adds nothing constructive to the conversation.
"On the one hand you say that fear of death by firearm is overblown and on the other claim that America loves guns more than they love kids." That isn't a logical comparison. That's "Do you walk to school or carry your lunch?"
As to the gun v car comparison - We do everything we can to make cars less deadly, right? Speed limits, airbags, seatbelts - we've cut our death rate from car accidents tremendously.
Show me a single meaningful thing we've done for gun safety that compares to that.
I'm sorry, but Newtown showed us who we are as a nation.
It is what it is.
One of the dumbest things I've read. Did Oklahoma City show us America loves bombs more than it loves kids? More children died in Oklahoma City and the total death count dwarfed Sandy Hook.
Every year we also prove that we love swimming and bathing Â
(It's more common to have an unintentional drowning death than death by firearm for children aged 5-9. Which may also explain why suicide by suffocation and suicide by firearm replaces that spot at #2 and #3 above homicide in children aged 10-14)
It is what it is.
RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: you are way off base Â
On the one hand you say that fear of death by firearm is overblown and on the other claim that America loves guns more than they love kids.
By your logic we also love cars more that we love kids.
Every day we all manage risk in our lives- which is what you are talking about. The fact that we allow private ownership of firearms is just another of those risks that we manage...just like most of us choose driving as our main mode of transportation over much less dangerous methods.
Suggesting we "love guns more than we love kids" is incredibly disingenuous and adds nothing constructive to the conversation.
"On the one hand you say that fear of death by firearm is overblown and on the other claim that America loves guns more than they love kids." That isn't a logical comparison. That's "Do you walk to school or carry your lunch?"
As to the gun v car comparison - We do everything we can to make cars less deadly, right? Speed limits, airbags, seatbelts - we've cut our death rate from car accidents tremendously.
Show me a single meaningful thing we've done for gun safety that compares to that.
Yes, because we have done nothing to regulate firearms throughout our history....
We can argue the merits of each and every law passed, but something tells me you aren't going to genuine in your arguments.
I would think most folks can agree things such as not being able to purchase firearms through mail order, not being able to purchase fully automatic weapons, requiring a background check, and not being able to purchase them if you are a felon are meaningful.
But no...your argument is that none of them are meaningful...so perhaps maybe, just maybe....since none of this legislation has made a significant impact in firearm deaths....the answer isn't legislation?
(BTW- much of this legislation HAS made a significant impact, along with many other factors to reduce homicide by firearm over the years)
I'm sorry, but Newtown showed us who we are as a nation.
It is what it is.
Does the Island massacre in 2011 show us what Norway is as a nation?
It's not about the tragic event, I speak of the lack of action to change laws to prevent such tragedies.
We see mass shootings like Newtown on our TV's about once a quarter, these days. Some of us, like me - are unlucky enough to actually have it happen in our communities (Binghamton Civic Center, 2009).
But as a nation we are FROZEN by American gun culture and it's influence on our Representatives.
It is what it is.
I support strengthening our gun laws, but I don't expect change.
Because if Newtown couldn't change anything, nothing will.
America. Loves. GUNS.
More than it loves children.
Cam just showed you actual steps that were taken Â
The timeline posted by Cam didn't indicate any actual steps taken since Newtown.
I'm inclined to agree with x meadowlander. These people have made their choice. If a school full of dead babies doesn't change anything, nothing will.
I think that is a very simplistic way to look at something, especially when we are talking about constitutional rights. I've stated many times I have no problem with stricter policies, and I believe they will start heading in that direction sooner or later. But banning guns period, which is being brought up time and time again is not only unrealistic, I can actually see it making society worse.
Happy to have a discussion, but if its going to be "all guns should be banned", then it isn't something worth taking seriously.
no one wants to see dead or hurt children, no one except the perpetrators of violent attacks, but you are attacking the tool not the root cause.
if you believe that removing guns would mean Sandy Hook wouldn't have happened you are making a huge leap that Adam Lanza would have woke up on December 14, 2012 and said "shit I don't have any guns I guess I won't go kill 20 kindergarten kids and 6 adults" and instead he'd just go on anonymously living his life.
When the alternatives, like the aforementioned Oklahoma City, or worse could have been his actual course of action instead of simply doing nothing and going on anonymously living his life.
Removing guns is no guarantee, and less than that, no indication, that mass killings would go away.
shootings, given that meaningful legal change is never going to happen with the second amendment and an influential NRA, you need to have a well organized, and well funded "anti NRA" that tries to change attitudes and culture about guns - advertise the stigmatization of guns and gun ownership much like the anti-crack cocaine this is your brain on drugs ads in the 80s, pay influencers on social media to promote anti-gun messages, promote cash for gun programs, organize speaking events at schools with relatives of victims of mass shootings, promote mental health awareness issues and detection causes (early warning systems), etc
Of course most people who love their guns will not suddenly change their tune and turn them in, especially in middle America, and it's not going to stop the violence, but if done well it could move the needle by reducing the demand for firearms.
Again, I don't think you realize how people from other countries, including free, democratic capitalist countries, are completely perplexed by America's obsession with guns.
no one wants to see dead or hurt children, no one except the perpetrators of violent attacks, but you are attacking the tool not the root cause.
if you believe that removing guns would mean Sandy Hook wouldn't have happened you are making a huge leap that Adam Lanza would have woke up on December 14, 2012 and said "shit I don't have any guns I guess I won't go kill 20 kindergarten kids and 6 adults" and instead he'd just go on anonymously living his life.
When the alternatives, like the aforementioned Oklahoma City, or worse could have been his actual course of action instead of simply doing nothing and going on anonymously living his life.
Removing guns is no guarantee, and less than that, no indication, that mass killings would go away.
Again, I don't think you realize how people from other countries, including free, democratic capitalist countries, are completely perplexed by America's obsession with guns.
I don't think you realize that many of us don't give a flying fuck about the opinions of foreigners.
no one wants to see dead or hurt children, no one except the perpetrators of violent attacks, but you are attacking the tool not the root cause.
if you believe that removing guns would mean Sandy Hook wouldn't have happened you are making a huge leap that Adam Lanza would have woke up on December 14, 2012 and said "shit I don't have any guns I guess I won't go kill 20 kindergarten kids and 6 adults" and instead he'd just go on anonymously living his life.
When the alternatives, like the aforementioned Oklahoma City, or worse could have been his actual course of action instead of simply doing nothing and going on anonymously living his life.
Removing guns is no guarantee, and less than that, no indication, that mass killings would go away.
You are attacking the tool not the cause.
Australia.
Do you have anything of substance to add? You realize that people like you are never part of a reasonable solution?
Researchers at the University of Melbourne disagree with you
Quote:
The 1996-97 National Firearms Agreement (NFA) in Australia introduced strict gun
laws, primarily as a reaction to the mass shooting in Port Arthur, Tasmania in 1996,
where 35 people were killed. Despite the fact that several researchers using the same
data have examined the impact of the NFA on firearm deaths, a consensus does not
appear to have been reached. In this paper, we re-analyze the same data on firearm
deaths used in previous research, using tests for unknown structural breaks as a means
to identifying impacts of the NFA. The results of these tests suggest that the NFA did
not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates.
no one wants to see dead or hurt children, no one except the perpetrators of violent attacks, but you are attacking the tool not the root cause.
if you believe that removing guns would mean Sandy Hook wouldn't have happened you are making a huge leap that Adam Lanza would have woke up on December 14, 2012 and said "shit I don't have any guns I guess I won't go kill 20 kindergarten kids and 6 adults" and instead he'd just go on anonymously living his life.
When the alternatives, like the aforementioned Oklahoma City, or worse could have been his actual course of action instead of simply doing nothing and going on anonymously living his life.
Removing guns is no guarantee, and less than that, no indication, that mass killings would go away.
You are attacking the tool not the cause.
Australia.
Australia banned guns in 1996, since then there have been 11 mass murders using arson, knife attacks, and guns (yes even where they are banned)
in the 20 years before 1996 they had 14. Huge change.
I see they really care about kids in Australia and it's evidenced by the 8 children between the ages of 18 months and 15 years old that were knifed to death in Cairns Queensland, yet they still allow knives.
Researchers at the University of Melbourne disagree with you
Quote:
The 1996-97 National Firearms Agreement (NFA) in Australia introduced strict gun
laws, primarily as a reaction to the mass shooting in Port Arthur, Tasmania in 1996,
where 35 people were killed. Despite the fact that several researchers using the same
data have examined the impact of the NFA on firearm deaths, a consensus does not
appear to have been reached. In this paper, we re-analyze the same data on firearm
deaths used in previous research, using tests for unknown structural breaks as a means
to identifying impacts of the NFA. The results of these tests suggest that the NFA did
not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates.
Link - ( New Window )
Yeah, I've seen that debunked piece before.
Look - it's an issue you really can't change minds on. Everyone has their point of view. Enough people believe in the Second Amendment strongly enough that it is nearly impossible to enact meaningful sweeping legislative change, and yes - Australia would be what I'm talking about.
My opinion is that I hate guns. Can't express that enough. Up to me, there'd be zero private gun ownership in the US. Hunters the only exception.
But I live in a free country. That means I get my way on most issues. So I can live with the gun culture. Statistically, I've got nothing to worry about. I'll never be shot.
Give me some specifics. BTW, they aren't the only researchers who have reached a similar conclusion. The British Journal of Criminology has published multiple studies reaching similar conclusions.
Additionally, the NFA buyback program only took in approximately 600K firearms, which represents at most about 30% of the weapons in Australia. There is also a thriving black market in firearms there as a result. A simple google search will give you a number of mainstream media reports on that subject.
Finally, both the overall homicide rate and the firearm homicide rate have declined at the same time as gun control laws have liberalized in the US. If guns are the root cause of firearm homicide, shouldn't that number have skyrocketed? Shouldn't Vermont, which has virtually no restrictions whatsoever on the sale and carry of firearms, be the most dangerous place in the country?
I've gone through all this more times than I can count on here Â
So I'm out. Never should have taken the bait to begin with. I will conclude with the wisdom of Senior Drill Instructor GySgt. Hartmann: "Your rifle is only a took. It is a hard heart that kills!"
Perhaps a more productive endeavor would be to wonder why American society produces so many violent antisocial shitbags who indiscriminately murder complete strangers.
Again, I don't think you realize how people from other countries, including free, democratic capitalist countries, are completely perplexed by America's obsession with guns.
I don't think you realize that many of us don't give a flying fuck about the opinions of foreigners.
Sure, uneducated rednecks don't care about the opinions of foreigners - but a lot of Americans do especially those that do business internationally, travel outside of the US, have a college education or have friends and family in other countries. If you are Billy Bob in northern Georgia who has worked in a local plant after graduating from high school, considers any trips across the Mississippi river to be "overseas" travel and spends his leisure time hunting and fishing, he could not care less about whether someone in Europe or Canada thinks his country's gun laws are backwards.
Again, I don't think you realize how people from other countries, including free, democratic capitalist countries, are completely perplexed by America's obsession with guns.
I don't think you realize that many of us don't give a flying fuck about the opinions of foreigners.
Sure, uneducated rednecks don't care about the opinions of foreigners - but a lot of Americans do especially those that do business internationally, travel outside of the US, have a college education or have friends and family in other countries. If you are Billy Bob in northern Georgia who has worked in a local plant after graduating from high school, considers any trips across the Mississippi river to be "overseas" travel and spends his leisure time hunting and fishing, he could not care less about whether someone in Europe or Canada thinks his country's gun laws are backwards.
Wow.
I would hope that you've come to that conclusion by being around and knowing a lot of Billy Bob's. It would surprise me though, as it is much different than the image I have of Billy Bob.
Billy Bob the gap toothed yokel from backwoods GA huh? Â
I like you and have always enjoyed you on the forum but with all due respect you come off like a snob with that last post.
I needed to counterbalance Greg's middle finger to the opinions of all foreigners
With bigotry? Seems reasonable...
And Greg's middle finger (I believe) was to the notion that the opinion of people who don't vote, don't pay taxes, don't reside here, etc. should be given any weight in a national debate seems pretty sound.
Do you care what your neighbor is going to think when you buy new sheets?
I like you and have always enjoyed you on the forum but with all due respect you come off like a snob with that last post.
I needed to counterbalance Greg's middle finger to the opinions of all foreigners
With bigotry? Seems reasonable...
And Greg's middle finger (I believe) was to the notion that the opinion of people who don't vote, don't pay taxes, don't reside here, etc. should be given any weight in a national debate seems pretty sound.
Do you care what your neighbor is going to think when you buy new sheets?
it is pure ignorance to disregard how other jurisdictions do things and their results
First, this incident began very similarly to Sandy Hook (murdered parent then short trip to nearby school), so thankfully it turned out much less bad. That firefighter is a badass for neutralizing the shooter.
I’d like to thank buford for weighing in. She always offers a layered and incisive viewpoint on issues such as this.
While 2nd amendment absolutists/literalists (and our dear profiteer friends in their preferred lobbying group) are among the most vapid and unbearable weirdos among us, one should allow that the loose 21st century equivalent of muskets – 15 round glocks or the like – reasonably fall under the purview of that codification. In that sense (and even without the Bill of Rights’ guarantee), I think Uconn is on fairly solid ground here. I concur.
Beyond handguns (add hunting weapons), attempts to appropriate the amendment to extol the ownership of their larger friends fast becomes a silly affair (familiar terrain for the aforementioned weirdos). Right, Ronnie?
Which is not to trivialize the ongoing role that handguns play in violence in America. It’s a major problem which can hopefully be solved in part by technology.
Regarding xmead’s inelegant simplification…a majority of Americans did support certain Federal gun control measures after Sandy Hook. (Those who have an hour interested in that would like this Frontline). But that’s not how laws are made.
Why is our favorite lobbying group in the driver’s seat wrt this issue? It’s not because of money. Bloomberg has more money than they’ll have in 100 years. It’s due to Gerrymandered house districts catering to single-issue (underline, bold, italics) members who are devoutly involved in the political process and who are very effectively mobilized. Compare it loosely to how a small Florida contingent of anti-Castro Cubans for decades influenced national policy (something that’s slowly changing, as we’ve seen).
The pendulum will not swing meaningfully until their yang regularly mobilizes in a commensurate manner, which includes actually voting in midterm elections. This does not look likely to happen. Whether you lament or celebrate that depends in part on to what degree you believe the weapons themselves and access to them are responsible for these incidents, but that’s the reality.
Lastly, I resent that the name Billy Bob is employed in order to portray backward rednecks. To me, it more appropriately represents drunken, pants-pissing Santas. Which reminds me: anyone who’s hoping our leaders will come together for even basic, sensible reforms (say, the oft-mentioned “mental health” angle):
I like you and have always enjoyed you on the forum but with all due respect you come off like a snob with that last post.
I needed to counterbalance Greg's middle finger to the opinions of all foreigners
With bigotry? Seems reasonable...
And Greg's middle finger (I believe) was to the notion that the opinion of people who don't vote, don't pay taxes, don't reside here, etc. should be given any weight in a national debate seems pretty sound.
Do you care what your neighbor is going to think when you buy new sheets?
it is pure ignorance to disregard how other jurisdictions do things and their results
Is that your backpedal on this one? That you were somehow implying that you were arguing from some sort of fact based analysis of gun control polices, and not simply making an idiotic attempt at a social proof?
Nice try, no one is buying it - go back and try and figure on what concealed means, that was at least entertaining.
I don't care whether you own a gun or not, but I do think guns should be much harder to get a hold of, and automatic weapons shouldn't be available to the public. IIRC, Sweden has some of the strictest gun control measures, where it takes a year to get your permit, and you're not guaranteed to get one if you have certain priors. It just seems like the most zealous supporters of the 2nd Amendment act like they're living out in the wild west.
Now how do we go about convincing states south of the Mason Dixon to enact similar laws - without even getting in to whether Conn's new legislation is worth a damn. We can't even get our wonderful Reps to agree on controls on suspected terror suspects for fear that they'll be challenged in a primary that's closer on the horizon than any actual sensible action to get guns our of the hands of nutjobs - or get regular joes and Jane's to better secure their existing guns.
Wrt Mental Health legislation as it relates to gun purchases, where do we even begin too determine what types of mental illness should preclude on from gun ownership? One in four Americans suffers from one type or another if we're to include depression. Even if we were to successfully reach a consensus on poses the greatest risk - how do we get around equal protection, since most agree it's a Constitutial right that shall not be abridged.
This is the problem. One side has dug in so deep on the issue and has done such a wonderful job of conflating and deflecting the discussion that we don't even have a starting point.
I will agree on one thing, much of CT's legislation is window-dressing, enacted under cover of darkness by legislators who were desperate to be seen as doing something.
There are very useful things that most gun owners would agree with that can and should be done - but these are seen as half measures by the segment of the population that is busy trying to wish guns away.
Many cases of mental illness go undiagnosed. Mostly because it's an inexact science, but also because we do such a poor job as a country in investing in mental health services. So any potential legislstion prohibiting say, Bi-polars or boderline personalities from owning a firearm probably won't do a heck of a lot in grand scheme of things.
It's a red herring. The answer is federal gun laws that supercede any existing legislation. Whatever that may be - so long as it's uniform and applied equally in each check state. Unfortunately, that's unlikely.
I will agree on one thing, much of CT's legislation is window-dressing, enacted under cover of darkness by legislators who were desperate to be seen as doing something.
There are very useful things that most gun owners would agree with that can and should be done - but these are seen as half measures by the segment of the population that is busy trying to wish guns away.
As I'd said earlier in the thread, I think the answer is a total ban. However, I'm not opposed to a middle ground solution of permitting gun ownership with strict background checks and uniform legislation. I think a majority of the America falls somewhere in the middle, with the zealots on either fringe driving actual policy. The far left wants all guns gone and the far right/NRA wants no restrictions.
To be clear, I was/am citing a mental illness component as the most basic of reforms. And did so in order to illustrate that even “no brainer” reform with little political opposition goes nowhere due largely to the wider digging in of heels (to which you accurately referred). Worries of a slippery slope.
It is most definitely used as a red herring by aggressively brazen profiteers, but need not necessarily be one as a portion of an overall good-faith approach to addressing the problem.
"Assault weapons" get a lot of play I. The media following mass shootings, but the vast majority (nearly all) gun deaths are caused by handguns.
Hand guns are the problem.
Sandy Hook was a bushmaster XM15 30-magazine rifle that did the damage. Lanza had a Glock and a Sig handgun with plenty of ammo for both, but I don't believe there was evidence either was fired other than the Glock with which Lanza took his own life.
Columbine there were both sawed off shotguns and handguns not to mention pipe bombs.
Dylan Roof used a .45 handgun
Omar Mateen (Orlando) used a 30-magazine capacity .223 S&W (I believe) rifle and a glock
Sayed Farook (San Bernardino) used two AR-15 rifles and illegally modified them one to be automatic (modifications were not successful, still remained semi) and a modification to one to make it larger magazine capacity
not saying handguns don't do damage, but in mass shooting it does not seem they are weapon of choice.
handguns are not reliably accurate for anyone other than a marksman from distances of more than 15 yards or so.
rifles and shotguns, much more accurate at much further distances.
As Rob was saying about Scary Black Rifle syndrome Â
That looks pretty hardcore, doesn't it? All tactical 'n shit. Now look at this rifle:
Looks a lot less scary, doesn't it?
They're the same rifle, the Springfield Armory M1A, chambered in .308 Winchester/7.62 NATO. One has a bunch of extra, largely cosmetic shit on it, plus that scary black synthetic stock instead of walnut.
Here's a video of three people who could probably obtain a gun in this situation regardless if they were outlawed or not.
Notice how they entered the house with their guns already drawn. Fortunately, the lone female house-sitter had her own firearm for self-defense, imagine how loud that must have been.
You'd rather emphatically stated earlier that you're "out", so good to see that you've been reading and have re-joined us.
The 1st gun you posted has a larger magazine, so not merely cosmetic differences. That said, you're accurate that a confusion about weapons is fairly common. Oftentimes a deliberate conflation (typically by politicians), but also frequently, I suspect, an honest confusion. Especially by those heartbroken parents who, yes, are not firearms experts but who are genuine in their attempts to prevent more violence like that which they suffered.
But it's an important point you bring up about weapon types and nomenclature. We should be debating where the "line" is when it comes to owning firearms, as we've been doing long before Sandy Hook or Columbine. Reagan, with 86's Firearm Owner's Protection Act, effectively (one can still get them via absurdly onerous avenues) put the quash on hold-down-trigger automatic weapons, even though a literalist reading of the Constitution indisputably would allow them.
Other things we should debate: "smart gun" technology (likely the best way to cut down on accidental child deaths), more aggressive universal background checks, federalized trafficking crimes, shorter magazine capacity (Lanza's gun had, I believe, 30 rounds). There are others and all offer debatable levels of efficacy. I'm not proposing any as a panacea, but reasonable people should explore them as a means to reduce violence.
What is not helpful is a fingers-in-ears, feet-stamping opposition to sensible reforms by those who make a lot of money catering to a very small contingent which I cited above. Whose power is in part magnified via illegitimate means (that is to say, cynically fashioned Congressional districts).
however magazine capacity is something that should be reasonably debated when discussing the role of firearms in home defense, hunting, and (regrettably) mass shootings.
So it is a notable difference when comparing the 2 photos, though he's correct about the guns themselves.
however magazine capacity is something that should be reasonably debated when discussing the role of firearms in home defense, hunting, and (regrettably) mass shootings.
So it is a notable difference when comparing the 2 photos, though he's correct about the guns themselves.
Absolutely open for discussion. However, does switching them change the functionality?
To someone who is planning to wreak havoc with a gun, switching out a clip quickly is an easy skill to master.
Lastly, large capacity magazines are more prone to jamming.
That being said, I have no problem limiting them to a reasonable capacity.
This to me is the sticking point because it can't be a one size fits all for various reasons.
In regards to making a magazine at home or learning to be very proficient in the skill of reloading; doing both and carrying out a horrible crime means there is a larger problem.
Not bringing that up to dump everything on mental health, but a handgun with 6/7 rounds (like mine) instead of the 14/15 you used to be able to carry is a pretty reasonable start and definitely limits what any joe schmo can do.
"In regards to making a magazine at home or learning to be very proficient in the skill of reloading; doing both and carrying out a horrible crime means there is a larger problem."
Absolutely agree 100%
Being handy in a metal shop and having fun at the range is completely different from planning a mass murder.
Absolutely open for discussion. However, does switching them change the functionality?
It does not.
The 2nd photo, though, is "less scary" for reasons beyond cosmetics like the bucolic hue. One would rather someone with ill intentions be armed with the latter gun. No guarantee of less carnage, obviously, but it does add that extra step. I imagine law enforcement is trained to fire back while a shooter is re-loading (I could be wrong).
I like you and have always enjoyed you on the forum but with all due respect you come off like a snob with that last post.
I've spent a great deal of time in Toronto. This is the norm for most people there. Opinionated, snobby metros that have nothing good to say about anything American. America is the root of all evil.
I read where the shooter was expelled from school last year (2015) for Â
Absolutely open for discussion. However, does switching them change the functionality?
It does not.
The 2nd photo, though, is "less scary" for reasons beyond cosmetics like the bucolic hue. One would rather someone with ill intentions be armed with the latter gun. No guarantee of less carnage, obviously, but it does add that extra step. I imagine law enforcement is trained to fire back while a shooter is re-loading (I could be wrong).
But functionally identical, you're correct.
Who's firing back though? You want everyone disarmed, don't you?
In any case, I've been round and round on this one. Go ahead and ban hi-capacity mags. I don't really have a problem with that, although it won't have any real practical effect. Watch the linked video to see why. Those are Marines, yes, but it's not rocket science. Anyone who practices it can learn a fast magazine exchange.
And let's say you want to ban external magazines altogether. Even with a bolt action rifle with an internal magazine, a proficient marksman can fire twenty or more aimed shots per minute and reload with a stripper clip in maybe four or five seconds.
Who's firing back though? You want everyone disarmed, don't you?
Either you possess exceedingly poor reading comprehension skills, or you didn't read what I wrote.
I don't want that (if only for selfish reasons given that I like the range), nor did I state as much anywhere on this or any other thread. In fact I wrote something directly contradictory yesterday circa east coast Jeopardy.
Nor did I assuredly advocate banning high cap magazines as a solution, only said that it's something to consider as part of making progress toward reducing gun murders.
Let me know if any of that is not clear enough for you.
As a gun owner and in general a supporter of the 2nd amendment Â
I do admit I find the unwillingness to compromise of the gun lobby/NRA a little frustrating. Especially when so much is state driven right now and I feel like what I had to do in MA wasn't easy, but should be a bare minimum and many states don't even have this much rigor and process around acquiring a firearm.
There are some common sense measures I think make sense that should be federally mandated. Many are mentioned. Intensive background checks to own a gun, mandatory safety training that needs to be re-certified periodically, magazine capacity limits, automatic weapon restrictions, etc.
I do understand the NRA perspective of if you give even a millimeter they'll take a foot and gradually chip away at our "freedoms", but I think that POV does them more harm than good (among their detractors) and they could make some common sense compromise that isn't even a middle ground, it's more on their side, that would be seen as true compromise comparatively speaking.
However, I still believe the knee jerk reaction to each mass killing is ill-informed, presumptive and misplaced, because IMO most mass killings would not and will not be prevented by even removing 100% (or whatever realistic percent a complete ban would get) of the legal and registered firearms.
just out of curiosity, why more restrictions on automatic weapons?
Since 1934 since they were banned, there has been 2 murders committed with legally owned machine guns. The only way a private citizen can own one is by obtaining a class 3 licence. You give up a few constitutional rights to get that.
Appears the regulations in place are working just fine.
just out of curiosity, why more restrictions on automatic weapons?
Since 1934 since they were banned, there has been 2 murders committed with legally owned machine guns. The only way a private citizen can own one is by obtaining a class 3 licence. You give up a few constitutional rights to get that.
Appears the regulations in place are working just fine.
Other than that, agree with the rest.
I'd just close the trust loophole for automatic weapons or close the trust loophole in general.
It might have even been already closed, Obama had been trying to do it for a while through executive order. It allowed people to create trusts or incorporate and buy guns, specifically illegal guns like machine guns or other illegal gun parts like some silencers, without getting either local jurisdiction approval or even without a background check.
Some great country we live in.
Really need to check the b.s. political talk as soon as there is a tragedy.
Still a pretty damn good country.
Why does it happen here more than anywhere else in the world. The study below compares us to 36 other countries combined.
The results are staggering.
School Shootings Around the World - ( New Window )
Good to see the first response to this thread is political. What is wrong with people
We do share one common sentiment though...indeed, what is wrong with people?
I'll cut to the chase, nobody has their minds changed.
Thanks for letting me know!
If you can't come on this thread, provide news updates, and talk about what happened at the school, then move on to something else.
There's plenty to talk about. Remember the Boston bombing? That thread was amazing. Constant updates, good feedback, very little bickering, almost no politics that I can remember.
oh
I don't know maybe information, sadness, outrage, shock, the usual responses to something awful. But why immediately try and make points about pro or con on gun control? Do you really think this will be the thread that changes minds?
Why does it happen here more than anywhere else in the world. The study below compares us to 36 other countries combined.
The results are staggering. School Shootings Around the World - ( New Window )
Those aren't staggering results. Most of those countries 1) aren't even on the economic scale that we are, and 2) do not have a population close to ours, 3) and many of them do not have a modern society like we do.
There are changes we can make, but these kinds of comparisons are useless and only serve as a red herring argument.
it's not new and it hampers progress and discussion.
I'm all for gun control. If someone isnt I'm not going to get bent out of shape.
Same way as I wouldnt get angry if someone disagreed on a draft pick/free agent signing/etc.
Sounds like early coverage is two children and a teacher wounded. Hopefully nobody dies. Prayers for all those who were injured.
What the hell does this even mean? You do understand prayers aren't delivered to the injured in boxes for them to eat, don't you?
It's a human reaction to tragedy. I am starting to get why it is unfamiliar to you.
Is it a white christian male? Maybe you're projecting your own prejudices since I haven't read one thing about the race or ethnicity of the shooter.
nothing like jumping to conclusions, so typical, people just can't help themselves.
Not sure if this is directed to me or not, but I didn't know until your very post who the culprit was. I scrolled up and saw an earlier post that suggested it was a teenager, and figured it was......a teenager. I actually didn't think ethnicity or religion until you brought it up.
Show me where I posted anywhere in a thread that out country is under attack, or even posted anything in those types of threads?
What makes you conclude this nut was a Christian?
And this thread is not the place to do that, per the site owner. Do you believe you will influence a bunch of BBI posters to enact meaningful change? You can't be that clueless. If you want to do that, call your representatives, run for office, or start going door to door.
On here - respect the rules of the site and shut up about your political views.
Who are these same people? The "same people" argument... usually exists in your head. Also, I'm unaware of shooters in this country creating tragedies touting a Christian faith. Serious question... who are these white, Christian male shooters? And if you can find them, was their religion a driver of their shooting or just an ancillary fact about them that was not related to their action? I think there has been 1 abortion clinic shooting in the last couple of years that would qualify... and that's all I can think of (maybe I'm wrong).
In the meantime, I hope your prayers---or whatever else anybody has---results in a cessation of the daily occurrence of these types of events.
Good luck and thank you for your support.
There used to be some good and interesting discussions here. I wish they were still allowed. Sadly though too many people would complain to Eric. Can you really blame him for running out of patience and not wanting to deal with baby sitting a bunch of adults.
So you'll continue to freeload. Got it...
Smile on your brother
Everybody get together
Try to love one another
Right now
B. Fuck you.
Political censorship on a sports forum? WTF are you talking about?
I do - and oddly enough, I was taught what censorship was in grade school, unlike some others.
Some great country we live in.
Please feel free to get the fuck out if you don't like this country.
Please feel free to get the fuck out if you don't like this country.
If you don't like reading about mass shootings every other week you can just move!" -superspynyg
Also, the media gives so much attention to these losers who commit these heinous acts that they achieve their mission of letting the word know how miserable they are and whatever their motive is.
Just a thought
Whoever first came up with the line we don't have a gun problem in America, we have a mental health problem fucking nailed it.
Also, the media gives so much attention to these losers who commit these heinous acts that they achieve their mission of letting the word know how miserable they are and whatever their motive is.
Just a thought
+1
Whoever first came up with the line we don't have a gun problem in America, we have a mental health problem fucking nailed it.
Then stop posting and go away. I am paying for your nonsense.
The two sides argue over the talking points every time there is an incident. It is divisive. It is useless. What is the point?
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
but I truly believe we have come to this as a result of a the glorification of violence - yeah we all love our action movies and TV shows and video games, but I believe we've desensitized ourselves (and our children) to the violence and have basically shown it as ok and "not real" to a degree.
Also, the media gives so much attention to these losers who commit these heinous acts that they achieve their mission of letting the word know how miserable they are and whatever their motive is.
Just a thought
so if you feel that these are the factors, what is your fix? do you ban/regulate all violent entertainment content? do you ban/force the media to not mention the names of the killers?
I don't have an answer Les. In our country we have great privileges. With great privileges comes great responsibility. I think we have collectively failed when it comes to responsibly managing our media and entertainment, and making sure we take care of those who need taking care of. I wish there was a simple answer. I was just making an observation.
Seriously? Throwing out this shit after a tragedy is really low.
This frees us up to discuss political issues (like gun control) if we like that kind of discussion.
Personally I think it would be horrible if we had to ban threads on newsworthy events as I enjoy them very much. The discussion of political stands related to that news is easy enough to stay out of if you want to, and these threads often turn into a great stream of information about the incidents.
Derp.
I'll bet you know more about ISIS than the generals do.
Why is being against Islamic extremism and morons who shoot up schools mutually exclusive? And does this event cancel out the dozens of recent attacks committed by morons in the name of their faith?
Quote:
and don't want to go back to that outdated way of thinking. Being glorified in the media and possibly being remembered definitely plays a role with some of these people.
Whoever first came up with the line we don't have a gun problem in America, we have a mental health problem fucking nailed it.
speaking as an outsider, I think America has a gun problem AND a mental health problem. mentally ill people + easy access to powerful firearms and infatuation with firearms = much higher incidence of mass shootings.
Actually Les, that is incorrect.
Western europe, with ~ the same population as the united States and all of them first world countries, the incidence is virtually the same. That was a few years back. I would dare to opine mass shootings appear to be on the uptick in Western Europe.
Quote:
In comment 13147234 GiantFilthy said:
Quote:
and don't want to go back to that outdated way of thinking. Being glorified in the media and possibly being remembered definitely plays a role with some of these people.
Whoever first came up with the line we don't have a gun problem in America, we have a mental health problem fucking nailed it.
speaking as an outsider, I think America has a gun problem AND a mental health problem. mentally ill people + easy access to powerful firearms and infatuation with firearms = much higher incidence of mass shootings.
Actually Les, that is incorrect.
Western europe, with ~ the same population as the united States and all of them first world countries, the incidence is virtually the same. That was a few years back. I would dare to opine mass shootings appear to be on the uptick in Western Europe.
That's not exactly correct.
Between 2009-2013 there were 38 mass shooting incidents (3+ people shot) in the US. That's .12 incident per 1M people. When you compare to other westernized nations with permissive laws, the stats are fairly similiar. Some nations, Finland for instance, have a higher occurrence when adjusted for population.
However, comparisons to restricted gun laws tells a different story. Nations like the UK, Netherland, France and Canada who have restrictive gun laws and similar demographics have a fraction of the mass shooting instances we see here.
I realize that people on either side of the argument tend to cherry pick stats to support their bias, but this is pretty cut and dry.
Talking of cherry picking. Didn't know Canada and Israel where part of western Europe either. My geography must suck.
Why is being against Islamic extremism and morons who shoot up schools mutually exclusive? And does this event cancel out the dozens of recent attacks committed by morons in the name of their faith?
There have been dozens of examples of Islamic extremists recently?
Talking of cherry picking. Didn't know Canada and Israel where part of western Europe either. My geography must suck.
Are you truly this dense?
I defined it for you in my post. It's 3+ people shot. The same way the FBI currently defines it.
Forget Israel. Compare the incidence of shootings in permissive countries to regulated countries.
Suddenly getting myopic isn't going to change the numbers.
Quote:
With this imagined Muslim persecution.
Why is being against Islamic extremism and morons who shoot up schools mutually exclusive? And does this event cancel out the dozens of recent attacks committed by morons in the name of their faith?
There have been dozens of examples of Islamic extremists recently?
Did you just wake from a year long nap?
Is it not possible to simultaneously care about terrorism and school violence? Or are we allowed to try and solve one problem at a time?
TOWNVILLE, S.C. — A volunteer firefighter who responded to the shooting at an elementary school Wednesday is said to have helped apprehend the shooter.
Jamie Brock, a 30-year veteran, reportedly “engaged the suspect and at that point took him down,” said Anderson County Emergency Management Director Taylor Jones.
Brock was able to hold the suspect until law enforcement arrived on scene. The 14-year-old shooter never entered the school, and was apprehended at the school’s playground, reported WISTV.
“There were some heroes here today,” Rev. Kyle Caudell, a chaplain for the local fire department told Greenville Online. “It could have been a ton worse.”
Two students and a teacher were shot; they were all transported to the hospital following the shooting. Before the shooting at Townville Elementary about 1:45 p.m., the teen gunned down his 47-year-old father, Jeffrey Osborne, at their home about 2 miles from the school, authorities told Associated Press.
Nice Job.
keeping guns from mentally ill people....should be a law. I thought it was....
Keeping guns from 14 should be a law....which it is a law, no?
Laws are not the issue.
What is occurring in our society that drives kids to do this????...they tend to have less hardship in life....so i suspect when hardships occurs...they have a harder time dealing with it. I would blame gradma for wiping my son's ass...but I kept kicking it until he grew up.
And for those who think violence is a US problem .....need to travel more.
If anyone thinks removing the guns from lawful people will resolve this issue......think again. Guns protect lawful citizens....without them will cause massive crime, unlawfulness. Go to South Chicago.....guns are unlawful there.....but yet gun crime is rampant and the citizen are prisoners in their own community
keeping guns from mentally ill people....should be a law. I thought it was....
Keeping guns from 14 should be a law....which it is a law, no?
Laws are not the issue.
What is occurring in our society that drives kids to do this????...they tend to have less hardship in life....so i suspect when hardships occurs...they have a harder time dealing with it. I would blame gradma for wiping my son's ass...but I kept kicking it until he grew up.
And for those who think violence is a US problem .....need to travel more.
If anyone thinks removing the guns from lawful people will resolve this issue......think again. Guns protect lawful citizens....without them will cause massive crime, unlawfulness. Go to South Chicago.....guns are unlawful there.....but yet gun crime is rampant and the citizen are prisoners in their own community
The fly in your soup, of course, is the fact what while guns may be unlawful in Chicago, they are plentiful and rather easy to obtain in neighboring states. This is the same problem NY is facing with guns pouring in from Virginia.
And of course removing guns out of the equation will make folks safer. They already have in places like Canada, and France, and Germany. As referenced above.
This notion that citizens require guns to protect themselves is delusion. What's more likely is your gun being used to comitt a crime. As we've seen time and time again.
It happens every day. And it happens to experienced gun owners and it happens to previously law abiding citizens every single day in this country.
YOU think it will never be YOU, but that provides slim solace to the rest of us.
You think the folks whom originally purchased a weapon ever envisioned said weapon would be used in Columbine, VA Tech, Sandy Hook, et al.
Or do you suppose they considered themselves sensible gun owners? That's the crux of the issue. People are idiots.
yes, it may make them safer from gun violence, but the UK is not safer from violent crime (and I understand the different ways US and UK classify violent crime) and they have far more restrictive gun laws, and little gun violence.
I know this isn't reason for keeping the status quo for gun laws, but sometimes I think what would these monsters do if they didn't have guns. Do some of you think they'd simply decide, oh well I was about to murder some children at a school or mow down the people inside a predominantly black church, but since I don't have guns I'm just going to keep on living my life?
No, they'll find other ways of wreaking havoc, maybe even worse.
Some examples, and this conversation gets tiresome, are Columbine. Columbine was supposed to be a bombing, where the whackos only used planned to use guns to shoot the fleeing victims, but they thankfully wired the bomb wrong and it never detonated. that tragedy could have been infinitely worse than it was.
Boston Marathon only took pressure cookers.
Oklahoma City was fertilizer infused bombs
Bath all the way back in the 1920's in Maine killed more than 40 people including more kids than Sandy Hook was a bomb.
bombings are far more lethal than gun violence and again, not suggesting it's a reason to keep the status quo, but taking away the tool of destruction, doesn't change the intent and I'm not sure it will reduce much in the way of mass shootings.
the biggest benefit you'd probably get from removing all guns would be accidental deaths (pure guess by me) just based on crimes committed with legal vs illegal guns.
You take away all guns, including the illegal guns, then sign me up. But you can't, so it won't and shouldn't happen. I don't even use my firearm for home protection but i'm sure as fuck not giving it back to the government knowing that criminals won't be doing the same.
Its a very unrealistic, and frankly, dumb idea to "ban" guns. It won't work, it can't work, and you won't be able to control the ones that are left on the streets of which there are tons.
You take away all guns, including the illegal guns, then sign me up. But you can't, so it won't and shouldn't happen. I don't even use my firearm for home protection but i'm sure as fuck not giving it back to the government knowing that criminals won't be doing the same.
Its a very unrealistic, and frankly, dumb idea to "ban" guns. It won't work, it can't work, and you won't be able to control the ones that are left on the streets of which there are tons.
I wasn't acussing you.
I meant to say, it's more likely that the gun will go off inadvertantly through mishandling, be stolen, found by a child, or a myriad of other terrible things than you ever successfully defending yourself from home invaders.
Have any cop buddies who've had marital problems? If so, what did the department do once they found out?
You think that's because the PD thought they'd suddenly break bad and rob a bank?
Quote:
In comment 13147245 Les in TO said:
Quote:
In comment 13147234 GiantFilthy said:
Quote:
and don't want to go back to that outdated way of thinking. Being glorified in the media and possibly being remembered definitely plays a role with some of these people.
Whoever first came up with the line we don't have a gun problem in America, we have a mental health problem fucking nailed it.
speaking as an outsider, I think America has a gun problem AND a mental health problem. mentally ill people + easy access to powerful firearms and infatuation with firearms = much higher incidence of mass shootings.
Actually Les, that is incorrect.
Western europe, with ~ the same population as the united States and all of them first world countries, the incidence is virtually the same. That was a few years back. I would dare to opine mass shootings appear to be on the uptick in Western Europe.
That's not exactly correct.
Between 2009-2013 there were 38 mass shooting incidents (3+ people shot) in the US. That's .12 incident per 1M people. When you compare to other westernized nations with permissive laws, the stats are fairly similiar. Some nations, Finland for instance, have a higher occurrence when adjusted for population.
However, comparisons to restricted gun laws tells a different story. Nations like the UK, Netherland, France and Canada who have restrictive gun laws and similar demographics have a fraction of the mass shooting instances we see here.
I realize that people on either side of the argument tend to cherry pick stats to support their bias, but this is pretty cut and dry.
on top of fatalities there are people who are disabled, injured or permanently psychologically scarred by witnessing a rampage incident which results in significant loss of productivity, health care costs, and leading to a culture of fear and anger.
Using a round number of 300 million guns in the US, that would mean there's over 150 million cases of gun violence...
Listen, I get the other side of things, if there was an easy way to make them all go away or make all illegal guns disappear out of thin air I think most people would be for that. But it just isn't possible. If all of a sudden law abiding citizens no longer have that right, you don't think potential chaos could ensue? What would stop anyone from coming into my home or your home?
I've never owned a gun, but my dad did. One night - I must've been about 10 or 11 - he decided it was the right time to teach me how to clean a gun. So he takes it out, lays it over a chamis towel and takes out the mag. He then starts explain what each part is and what it does. As he's doing this, he explains how to grip and how pulling the trigger will draw the hammer back and so on. He pulls the trigger and the gun goes off. Fires a round right through our duplex sheetrock into the house next door. The knucklehead forgot about the round in the chamber. This is guy who served almost 20 years as a Staff Sgt., had over 2000 career jumps (who's also afraid of heights - dafuq?). Had more weapons training than most gun owners and he still fucked up. Luckily, the couple next door was out doing the dinner/movie thing and we're close friends of the family, because the round went through their livingroom sofa.
So I don't own a gun. I've also never had to battle home invaders.
And no, I don't think it guns were restricted that all hell breaks loose. Absurd.
Using a round number of 300 million guns in the US, that would mean there's over 150 million cases of gun violence...
As simply put as is possible - a firearm adds risk. Period. Dead stop. Risk that does not exist if there is no firearm.
There is ZERO risk of one of my guns ever being fired because I own ZERO guns. Regardless of how safe a gun owner may be, their risk can NEVER be ZERO.
What the actual risk is for an individual gun owner relies on countless factors.
The two sides argue over the talking points every time there is an incident. It is divisive. It is useless. What is the point?
I agree, and I agree with banning political threads. There are plenty of other forums you can go to and yell about your views.
Quote:
you are saying that its more likely to cause harm either on purpose or accidentally than it is to not harm someone if you are a gun owner? How do those numbers even add up?
Using a round number of 300 million guns in the US, that would mean there's over 150 million cases of gun violence...
Let me guess. You're not a math major. :)
As simply put as is possible - a firearm adds risk. Period. Dead stop. Risk that does not exist if there is no firearm.
There is ZERO risk of one of my guns ever being fired because I own ZERO guns. Regardless of how safe a gun owner may be, their risk can NEVER be ZERO.
What the actual risk is for an individual gun owner relies on countless factors.
No, i'm quite good at math though and I was responding to another posters comments, not making up my own. I fully realize having no guns = no risk, I simply did not argue otherwise so you should probably re-read my post that states that getting rid of all guns period would be the only way this works, yet that can't happen. And since it can't happen, we have this lovely debate.
Quote:
you are saying that its more likely to cause harm either on purpose or accidentally than it is to not harm someone if you are a gun owner? How do those numbers even add up?
Using a round number of 300 million guns in the US, that would mean there's over 150 million cases of gun violence...
Let me guess. You're not a math major. :)
As simply put as is possible - a firearm adds risk. Period. Dead stop. Risk that does not exist if there is no firearm.
There is ZERO risk of one of my guns ever being fired because I own ZERO guns. Regardless of how safe a gun owner may be, their risk can NEVER be ZERO.
What the actual risk is for an individual gun owner relies on countless factors.
Ok what are you doing with all the millions of illegal, unmarked guns in the US?
Using a round number of 300 million guns in the US, that would mean there's over 150 million cases of gun violence...
Listen, I get the other side of things, if there was an easy way to make them all go away or make all illegal guns disappear out of thin air I think most people would be for that. But it just isn't possible. If all of a sudden law abiding citizens no longer have that right, you don't think potential chaos could ensue? What would stop anyone from coming into my home or your home?
No. He's saying it's more likely to cause harm than to successfully use it to defend yourself.
By far the most likely outcome is that it never hurts anyone.
But between the extremes: It harms and innocent and it saves your life- the former is much more likely. It isn't all that difficult to understand.
Quote:
In comment 13147731 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
you are saying that its more likely to cause harm either on purpose or accidentally than it is to not harm someone if you are a gun owner? How do those numbers even add up?
Using a round number of 300 million guns in the US, that would mean there's over 150 million cases of gun violence...
Let me guess. You're not a math major. :)
As simply put as is possible - a firearm adds risk. Period. Dead stop. Risk that does not exist if there is no firearm.
There is ZERO risk of one of my guns ever being fired because I own ZERO guns. Regardless of how safe a gun owner may be, their risk can NEVER be ZERO.
What the actual risk is for an individual gun owner relies on countless factors.
Ok what are you doing with all the millions of illegal, unmarked guns in the US?
Don't worry Dep, all the criminals will turn them in, nothing to worry about.
Quote:
In comment 13147731 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
Ok what are you doing with all the millions of illegal, unmarked guns in the US?
Quote:
I agree, and I agree with banning political threads. There are plenty of other forums you can go to and yell about your views.
The idea of banning topics that one prefers not to read will never not be bizarre.
I'm continually amazed that the concept of "don't click on a thread/close a thread that does not appeal to you" (like I do with IMV stupid Fantasy threads) eludes the more delicate among us.
Yeah, there are "plenty of other" political forums. And fantasy forums. And movie forums. And breaking news forums. And video game forums, etc. etc.
Fear not though, Eric hast madeth thy space safe!
Quote:
In comment 13147782 x meadowlander said:
Quote:
In comment 13147731 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
Ok what are you doing with all the millions of illegal, unmarked guns in the US?
Me? Nothing. Those who own them own most of the risk. Most of that risk is to suicide, btw. Vast majority of gun fatalities in the U.S. are suicides.
So lets say this is even remotely true. You're ok with million of illegal guns in the US. So lets reverse course here. We do ban guns or get rid of them (not even possible by the way).... you dont think criminals, gangs, or even your every day citizens wont get a hold of them? Just because they are "illegal" does not mean they go away. Little bit of a fantasy world you live in, huh?
I do not own a gun and never will. However, I feel safer knowing that my neighbors can own them. I am a believer in less guns = more crime. Not necessarily mor emurders, but definitely increase in crime.
Whoever first came up with the line we don't have a gun problem in America, we have a mental health problem fucking nailed it.
Combine that with notions that anyone can feel aggrieved and slighted when they don't feel their lives are perfect.
My mom was the last of nine children from the depression era. She used to say hat they were so busy trying it survive no one worried about the stupid shit we do. Basically idle hands do the devils work. We have so much and appreciate so little.
Also the idiocy that a pill will cure whatever ails us mentally is dangerous and myopic
The important difference is that the Muslim murderers are using mainstream current teachings of the religion. The Christian ones are not supported by any of the currently accepted doctrine or supported by the institutions of Christianity. I know it's hard for some people to believe that religious beliefs and teachings have consequences in our mostly secular society, but there is a major difference between Islam and other major religions, which clearly plays out on a daily basis around the world.
Quote:
In comment 13147795 dep026 said:
Quote:
Me? Nothing. Those who own them own most of the risk. Most of that risk is to suicide, btw. Vast majority of gun fatalities in the U.S. are suicides.
So lets say this is even remotely true. You're ok with million of illegal guns in the US. So lets reverse course here. We do ban guns or get rid of them (not even possible by the way).... you dont think criminals, gangs, or even your every day citizens wont get a hold of them? Just because they are "illegal" does not mean they go away. Little bit of a fantasy world you live in, huh?
I do not own a gun and never will. However, I feel safer knowing that my neighbors can own them. I am a believer in less guns = more crime. Not necessarily mor emurders, but definitely increase in crime.
I know there is a lot of fear mongering out there, that we are in imminent danger of being shot always, but it simply isn't true - and it's VERY easy to find the raw data on that.
Sure, I would love it if America was sane with our gun laws, but we're not! No country is perfect - America has shown that at least in the short term, we are NOT changing ANY meaningful gun laws - we have proven that as a nation, we love guns MORE than we love people, even more than we love Children - it's not that I wouldn't prefer the laws to be more safe and sensible, it's simply that it is not who we are, or where we live.
So I don't own a gun, and I will never be shot. (statistically speaking)
Let's not be silly.
On the one hand you say that fear of death by firearm is overblown and on the other claim that America loves guns more than they love kids.
By your logic we also love cars more that we love kids.
Every day we all manage risk in our lives- which is what you are talking about. The fact that we allow private ownership of firearms is just another of those risks that we manage...just like most of us choose driving as our main mode of transportation over much less dangerous methods.
Suggesting we "love guns more than we love kids" is incredibly disingenuous and adds nothing constructive to the conversation.
Let's not be silly.
On the one hand you say that fear of death by firearm is overblown and on the other claim that America loves guns more than they love kids.
By your logic we also love cars more that we love kids.
Every day we all manage risk in our lives- which is what you are talking about. The fact that we allow private ownership of firearms is just another of those risks that we manage...just like most of us choose driving as our main mode of transportation over much less dangerous methods.
Suggesting we "love guns more than we love kids" is incredibly disingenuous and adds nothing constructive to the conversation.
As to the gun v car comparison - We do everything we can to make cars less deadly, right? Speed limits, airbags, seatbelts - we've cut our death rate from car accidents tremendously.
Show me a single meaningful thing we've done for gun safety that compares to that.
It is what it is.
It is what it is.
What a fucking stupid comment.
It is what it is.
One of the dumbest things I've read. Did Oklahoma City show us America loves bombs more than it loves kids? More children died in Oklahoma City and the total death count dwarfed Sandy Hook.
(It's more common to have an unintentional drowning death than death by firearm for children aged 5-9. Which may also explain why suicide by suffocation and suicide by firearm replaces that spot at #2 and #3 above homicide in children aged 10-14)
It is what it is.
Quote:
In comment 13148012 x meadowlander said:
Let's not be silly.
On the one hand you say that fear of death by firearm is overblown and on the other claim that America loves guns more than they love kids.
By your logic we also love cars more that we love kids.
Every day we all manage risk in our lives- which is what you are talking about. The fact that we allow private ownership of firearms is just another of those risks that we manage...just like most of us choose driving as our main mode of transportation over much less dangerous methods.
Suggesting we "love guns more than we love kids" is incredibly disingenuous and adds nothing constructive to the conversation.
"On the one hand you say that fear of death by firearm is overblown and on the other claim that America loves guns more than they love kids." That isn't a logical comparison. That's "Do you walk to school or carry your lunch?"
As to the gun v car comparison - We do everything we can to make cars less deadly, right? Speed limits, airbags, seatbelts - we've cut our death rate from car accidents tremendously.
Show me a single meaningful thing we've done for gun safety that compares to that.
Yes, because we have done nothing to regulate firearms throughout our history....
We can argue the merits of each and every law passed, but something tells me you aren't going to genuine in your arguments.
I would think most folks can agree things such as not being able to purchase firearms through mail order, not being able to purchase fully automatic weapons, requiring a background check, and not being able to purchase them if you are a felon are meaningful.
But no...your argument is that none of them are meaningful...so perhaps maybe, just maybe....since none of this legislation has made a significant impact in firearm deaths....the answer isn't legislation?
(BTW- much of this legislation HAS made a significant impact, along with many other factors to reduce homicide by firearm over the years)
Timeline. - ( New Window )
It is what it is.
Quote:
I'm sorry, but Newtown showed us who we are as a nation.
It is what it is.
Does the Island massacre in 2011 show us what Norway is as a nation?
We see mass shootings like Newtown on our TV's about once a quarter, these days. Some of us, like me - are unlucky enough to actually have it happen in our communities (Binghamton Civic Center, 2009).
But as a nation we are FROZEN by American gun culture and it's influence on our Representatives.
It is what it is.
I support strengthening our gun laws, but I don't expect change.
Because if Newtown couldn't change anything, nothing will.
America. Loves. GUNS.
More than it loves children.
The timeline posted by Cam didn't indicate any actual steps taken since Newtown.
I'm inclined to agree with x meadowlander. These people have made their choice. If a school full of dead babies doesn't change anything, nothing will.
Quote:
so why are you ignoring his post?
The timeline posted by Cam didn't indicate any actual steps taken since Newtown.
I'm inclined to agree with x meadowlander. These people have made their choice. If a school full of dead babies doesn't change anything, nothing will.
I think that is a very simplistic way to look at something, especially when we are talking about constitutional rights. I've stated many times I have no problem with stricter policies, and I believe they will start heading in that direction sooner or later. But banning guns period, which is being brought up time and time again is not only unrealistic, I can actually see it making society worse.
Happy to have a discussion, but if its going to be "all guns should be banned", then it isn't something worth taking seriously.
no one wants to see dead or hurt children, no one except the perpetrators of violent attacks, but you are attacking the tool not the root cause.
if you believe that removing guns would mean Sandy Hook wouldn't have happened you are making a huge leap that Adam Lanza would have woke up on December 14, 2012 and said "shit I don't have any guns I guess I won't go kill 20 kindergarten kids and 6 adults" and instead he'd just go on anonymously living his life.
When the alternatives, like the aforementioned Oklahoma City, or worse could have been his actual course of action instead of simply doing nothing and going on anonymously living his life.
Removing guns is no guarantee, and less than that, no indication, that mass killings would go away.
You are attacking the tool not the cause.
Of course most people who love their guns will not suddenly change their tune and turn them in, especially in middle America, and it's not going to stop the violence, but if done well it could move the needle by reducing the demand for firearms.
Again, I don't think you realize how people from other countries, including free, democratic capitalist countries, are completely perplexed by America's obsession with guns.
no one wants to see dead or hurt children, no one except the perpetrators of violent attacks, but you are attacking the tool not the root cause.
if you believe that removing guns would mean Sandy Hook wouldn't have happened you are making a huge leap that Adam Lanza would have woke up on December 14, 2012 and said "shit I don't have any guns I guess I won't go kill 20 kindergarten kids and 6 adults" and instead he'd just go on anonymously living his life.
When the alternatives, like the aforementioned Oklahoma City, or worse could have been his actual course of action instead of simply doing nothing and going on anonymously living his life.
Removing guns is no guarantee, and less than that, no indication, that mass killings would go away.
You are attacking the tool not the cause.
Australia.
I don't think you realize that many of us don't give a flying fuck about the opinions of foreigners.
Quote:
view as x meadowlander.
no one wants to see dead or hurt children, no one except the perpetrators of violent attacks, but you are attacking the tool not the root cause.
if you believe that removing guns would mean Sandy Hook wouldn't have happened you are making a huge leap that Adam Lanza would have woke up on December 14, 2012 and said "shit I don't have any guns I guess I won't go kill 20 kindergarten kids and 6 adults" and instead he'd just go on anonymously living his life.
When the alternatives, like the aforementioned Oklahoma City, or worse could have been his actual course of action instead of simply doing nothing and going on anonymously living his life.
Removing guns is no guarantee, and less than that, no indication, that mass killings would go away.
You are attacking the tool not the cause.
Australia.
Do you have anything of substance to add? You realize that people like you are never part of a reasonable solution?
laws, primarily as a reaction to the mass shooting in Port Arthur, Tasmania in 1996,
where 35 people were killed. Despite the fact that several researchers using the same
data have examined the impact of the NFA on firearm deaths, a consensus does not
appear to have been reached. In this paper, we re-analyze the same data on firearm
deaths used in previous research, using tests for unknown structural breaks as a means
to identifying impacts of the NFA. The results of these tests suggest that the NFA did
not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates.
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
view as x meadowlander.
no one wants to see dead or hurt children, no one except the perpetrators of violent attacks, but you are attacking the tool not the root cause.
if you believe that removing guns would mean Sandy Hook wouldn't have happened you are making a huge leap that Adam Lanza would have woke up on December 14, 2012 and said "shit I don't have any guns I guess I won't go kill 20 kindergarten kids and 6 adults" and instead he'd just go on anonymously living his life.
When the alternatives, like the aforementioned Oklahoma City, or worse could have been his actual course of action instead of simply doing nothing and going on anonymously living his life.
Removing guns is no guarantee, and less than that, no indication, that mass killings would go away.
You are attacking the tool not the cause.
Australia.
Australia banned guns in 1996, since then there have been 11 mass murders using arson, knife attacks, and guns (yes even where they are banned)
in the 20 years before 1996 they had 14. Huge change.
I see they really care about kids in Australia and it's evidenced by the 8 children between the ages of 18 months and 15 years old that were knifed to death in Cairns Queensland, yet they still allow knives.
Australia loves knives more than children.
Next.
Quote:
The 1996-97 National Firearms Agreement (NFA) in Australia introduced strict gun
laws, primarily as a reaction to the mass shooting in Port Arthur, Tasmania in 1996,
where 35 people were killed. Despite the fact that several researchers using the same
data have examined the impact of the NFA on firearm deaths, a consensus does not
appear to have been reached. In this paper, we re-analyze the same data on firearm
deaths used in previous research, using tests for unknown structural breaks as a means
to identifying impacts of the NFA. The results of these tests suggest that the NFA did
not have any large effects on reducing firearm homicide or suicide rates.
Link - ( New Window )
Look - it's an issue you really can't change minds on. Everyone has their point of view. Enough people believe in the Second Amendment strongly enough that it is nearly impossible to enact meaningful sweeping legislative change, and yes - Australia would be what I'm talking about.
My opinion is that I hate guns. Can't express that enough. Up to me, there'd be zero private gun ownership in the US. Hunters the only exception.
But I live in a free country. That means I get my way on most issues. So I can live with the gun culture. Statistically, I've got nothing to worry about. I'll never be shot.
Additionally, the NFA buyback program only took in approximately 600K firearms, which represents at most about 30% of the weapons in Australia. There is also a thriving black market in firearms there as a result. A simple google search will give you a number of mainstream media reports on that subject.
Finally, both the overall homicide rate and the firearm homicide rate have declined at the same time as gun control laws have liberalized in the US. If guns are the root cause of firearm homicide, shouldn't that number have skyrocketed? Shouldn't Vermont, which has virtually no restrictions whatsoever on the sale and carry of firearms, be the most dangerous place in the country?
Perhaps a more productive endeavor would be to wonder why American society produces so many violent antisocial shitbags who indiscriminately murder complete strangers.
Quote:
Again, I don't think you realize how people from other countries, including free, democratic capitalist countries, are completely perplexed by America's obsession with guns.
I don't think you realize that many of us don't give a flying fuck about the opinions of foreigners.
Quote:
In comment 13148244 Les in TO said:
Quote:
Again, I don't think you realize how people from other countries, including free, democratic capitalist countries, are completely perplexed by America's obsession with guns.
I don't think you realize that many of us don't give a flying fuck about the opinions of foreigners.
Sure, uneducated rednecks don't care about the opinions of foreigners - but a lot of Americans do especially those that do business internationally, travel outside of the US, have a college education or have friends and family in other countries. If you are Billy Bob in northern Georgia who has worked in a local plant after graduating from high school, considers any trips across the Mississippi river to be "overseas" travel and spends his leisure time hunting and fishing, he could not care less about whether someone in Europe or Canada thinks his country's gun laws are backwards.
Wow.
I would hope that you've come to that conclusion by being around and knowing a lot of Billy Bob's. It would surprise me though, as it is much different than the image I have of Billy Bob.
Personally, I feel mystified and dismayed by Canada's lack of free expression, but que sera sera.
He sure did ruin the image of Georgia for the rest of the world.
Didn't he Les?
fixed it for you.
Personally, I feel mystified and dismayed by Canada's lack of free expression, but que sera sera.
Quote:
I like you and have always enjoyed you on the forum but with all due respect you come off like a snob with that last post.
I needed to counterbalance Greg's middle finger to the opinions of all foreigners
With bigotry? Seems reasonable...
And Greg's middle finger (I believe) was to the notion that the opinion of people who don't vote, don't pay taxes, don't reside here, etc. should be given any weight in a national debate seems pretty sound.
Do you care what your neighbor is going to think when you buy new sheets?
Quote:
In comment 13148416 steve in ky said:
Quote:
I like you and have always enjoyed you on the forum but with all due respect you come off like a snob with that last post.
I needed to counterbalance Greg's middle finger to the opinions of all foreigners
With bigotry? Seems reasonable...
And Greg's middle finger (I believe) was to the notion that the opinion of people who don't vote, don't pay taxes, don't reside here, etc. should be given any weight in a national debate seems pretty sound.
Do you care what your neighbor is going to think when you buy new sheets?
First, this incident began very similarly to Sandy Hook (murdered parent then short trip to nearby school), so thankfully it turned out much less bad. That firefighter is a badass for neutralizing the shooter.
I’d like to thank buford for weighing in. She always offers a layered and incisive viewpoint on issues such as this.
While 2nd amendment absolutists/literalists (and our dear profiteer friends in their preferred lobbying group) are among the most vapid and unbearable weirdos among us, one should allow that the loose 21st century equivalent of muskets – 15 round glocks or the like – reasonably fall under the purview of that codification. In that sense (and even without the Bill of Rights’ guarantee), I think Uconn is on fairly solid ground here. I concur.
Beyond handguns (add hunting weapons), attempts to appropriate the amendment to extol the ownership of their larger friends fast becomes a silly affair (familiar terrain for the aforementioned weirdos). Right, Ronnie?
Which is not to trivialize the ongoing role that handguns play in violence in America. It’s a major problem which can hopefully be solved in part by technology.
Regarding xmead’s inelegant simplification…a majority of Americans did support certain Federal gun control measures after Sandy Hook. (Those who have an hour interested in that would like this Frontline). But that’s not how laws are made.
Why is our favorite lobbying group in the driver’s seat wrt this issue? It’s not because of money. Bloomberg has more money than they’ll have in 100 years. It’s due to Gerrymandered house districts catering to single-issue (underline, bold, italics) members who are devoutly involved in the political process and who are very effectively mobilized. Compare it loosely to how a small Florida contingent of anti-Castro Cubans for decades influenced national policy (something that’s slowly changing, as we’ve seen).
The pendulum will not swing meaningfully until their yang regularly mobilizes in a commensurate manner, which includes actually voting in midterm elections. This does not look likely to happen. Whether you lament or celebrate that depends in part on to what degree you believe the weapons themselves and access to them are responsible for these incidents, but that’s the reality.
Lastly, I resent that the name Billy Bob is employed in order to portray backward rednecks. To me, it more appropriately represents drunken, pants-pissing Santas. Which reminds me: anyone who’s hoping our leaders will come together for even basic, sensible reforms (say, the oft-mentioned “mental health” angle):
Quote:
In comment 13148450 Les in TO said:
Quote:
In comment 13148416 steve in ky said:
Quote:
I like you and have always enjoyed you on the forum but with all due respect you come off like a snob with that last post.
I needed to counterbalance Greg's middle finger to the opinions of all foreigners
With bigotry? Seems reasonable...
And Greg's middle finger (I believe) was to the notion that the opinion of people who don't vote, don't pay taxes, don't reside here, etc. should be given any weight in a national debate seems pretty sound.
Do you care what your neighbor is going to think when you buy new sheets?
it is pure ignorance to disregard how other jurisdictions do things and their results
Is that your backpedal on this one? That you were somehow implying that you were arguing from some sort of fact based analysis of gun control polices, and not simply making an idiotic attempt at a social proof?
Nice try, no one is buying it - go back and try and figure on what concealed means, that was at least entertaining.
We just had some great BBQ right here in North Georgia. You damn Yankees don't know what you are missing. Enjoy the snow!
Now how do we go about convincing states south of the Mason Dixon to enact similar laws - without even getting in to whether Conn's new legislation is worth a damn. We can't even get our wonderful Reps to agree on controls on suspected terror suspects for fear that they'll be challenged in a primary that's closer on the horizon than any actual sensible action to get guns our of the hands of nutjobs - or get regular joes and Jane's to better secure their existing guns.
Wrt Mental Health legislation as it relates to gun purchases, where do we even begin too determine what types of mental illness should preclude on from gun ownership? One in four Americans suffers from one type or another if we're to include depression. Even if we were to successfully reach a consensus on poses the greatest risk - how do we get around equal protection, since most agree it's a Constitutial right that shall not be abridged.
This is the problem. One side has dug in so deep on the issue and has done such a wonderful job of conflating and deflecting the discussion that we don't even have a starting point.
There are very useful things that most gun owners would agree with that can and should be done - but these are seen as half measures by the segment of the population that is busy trying to wish guns away.
It's a red herring. The answer is federal gun laws that supercede any existing legislation. Whatever that may be - so long as it's uniform and applied equally in each check state. Unfortunately, that's unlikely.
Where are automatic weapons publicly available?
There are very useful things that most gun owners would agree with that can and should be done - but these are seen as half measures by the segment of the population that is busy trying to wish guns away.
As I'd said earlier in the thread, I think the answer is a total ban. However, I'm not opposed to a middle ground solution of permitting gun ownership with strict background checks and uniform legislation. I think a majority of the America falls somewhere in the middle, with the zealots on either fringe driving actual policy. The far left wants all guns gone and the far right/NRA wants no restrictions.
Quote:
automatic weapons shouldn't be available to the public.
Where are automatic weapons publicly available?
My apologies, I meant assault weapons. I'm certainly no scholar on the subject, but there are 7 states that have banned them, right?
It is most definitely used as a red herring by aggressively brazen profiteers, but need not necessarily be one as a portion of an overall good-faith approach to addressing the problem.
Hand guns are the problem.
Hand guns are the problem.
Sandy Hook was a bushmaster XM15 30-magazine rifle that did the damage. Lanza had a Glock and a Sig handgun with plenty of ammo for both, but I don't believe there was evidence either was fired other than the Glock with which Lanza took his own life.
Columbine there were both sawed off shotguns and handguns not to mention pipe bombs.
Dylan Roof used a .45 handgun
Omar Mateen (Orlando) used a 30-magazine capacity .223 S&W (I believe) rifle and a glock
Sayed Farook (San Bernardino) used two AR-15 rifles and illegally modified them one to be automatic (modifications were not successful, still remained semi) and a modification to one to make it larger magazine capacity
not saying handguns don't do damage, but in mass shooting it does not seem they are weapon of choice.
handguns are not reliably accurate for anyone other than a marksman from distances of more than 15 yards or so.
rifles and shotguns, much more accurate at much further distances.
That looks pretty hardcore, doesn't it? All tactical 'n shit. Now look at this rifle:
Looks a lot less scary, doesn't it?
They're the same rifle, the Springfield Armory M1A, chambered in .308 Winchester/7.62 NATO. One has a bunch of extra, largely cosmetic shit on it, plus that scary black synthetic stock instead of walnut.
Notice how they entered the house with their guns already drawn. Fortunately, the lone female house-sitter had her own firearm for self-defense, imagine how loud that must have been.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyQV2dR_tT8
Tragically, only one of these three home invaders were killed in this incident.
The 1st gun you posted has a larger magazine, so not merely cosmetic differences. That said, you're accurate that a confusion about weapons is fairly common. Oftentimes a deliberate conflation (typically by politicians), but also frequently, I suspect, an honest confusion. Especially by those heartbroken parents who, yes, are not firearms experts but who are genuine in their attempts to prevent more violence like that which they suffered.
But it's an important point you bring up about weapon types and nomenclature. We should be debating where the "line" is when it comes to owning firearms, as we've been doing long before Sandy Hook or Columbine. Reagan, with 86's Firearm Owner's Protection Act, effectively (one can still get them via absurdly onerous avenues) put the quash on hold-down-trigger automatic weapons, even though a literalist reading of the Constitution indisputably would allow them.
Other things we should debate: "smart gun" technology (likely the best way to cut down on accidental child deaths), more aggressive universal background checks, federalized trafficking crimes, shorter magazine capacity (Lanza's gun had, I believe, 30 rounds). There are others and all offer debatable levels of efficacy. I'm not proposing any as a panacea, but reasonable people should explore them as a means to reduce violence.
What is not helpful is a fingers-in-ears, feet-stamping opposition to sensible reforms by those who make a lot of money catering to a very small contingent which I cited above. Whose power is in part magnified via illegitimate means (that is to say, cynically fashioned Congressional districts).
The 1st gun you posted has a larger magazine, so not merely cosmetic differences.
You can put a larger or smaller magazine in either so it's not a functional difference.
So it is a notable difference when comparing the 2 photos, though he's correct about the guns themselves.
So it is a notable difference when comparing the 2 photos, though he's correct about the guns themselves.
Absolutely open for discussion. However, does switching them change the functionality?
To someone who is planning to wreak havoc with a gun, switching out a clip quickly is an easy skill to master.
Lastly, large capacity magazines are more prone to jamming.
That being said, I have no problem limiting them to a reasonable capacity.
This to me is the sticking point because it can't be a one size fits all for various reasons.
To someone who is planning to wreak havoc with a gun, switching out a clip quickly is an easy skill to master.
Lastly, large capacity magazines are more prone to jamming.
That being said, I have no problem limiting them to a reasonable capacity.
This to me is the sticking point because it can't be a one size fits all for various reasons.
In regards to making a magazine at home or learning to be very proficient in the skill of reloading; doing both and carrying out a horrible crime means there is a larger problem.
Not bringing that up to dump everything on mental health, but a handgun with 6/7 rounds (like mine) instead of the 14/15 you used to be able to carry is a pretty reasonable start and definitely limits what any joe schmo can do.
Absolutely agree 100%
Being handy in a metal shop and having fun at the range is completely different from planning a mass murder.
It does not.
The 2nd photo, though, is "less scary" for reasons beyond cosmetics like the bucolic hue. One would rather someone with ill intentions be armed with the latter gun. No guarantee of less carnage, obviously, but it does add that extra step. I imagine law enforcement is trained to fire back while a shooter is re-loading (I could be wrong).
But functionally identical, you're correct.
I've spent a great deal of time in Toronto. This is the norm for most people there. Opinionated, snobby metros that have nothing good to say about anything American. America is the root of all evil.
This was clearly an unstable boy with mental problems.
The question is even with that type of warning how does a parent proceed?
Quote:
Absolutely open for discussion. However, does switching them change the functionality?
It does not.
The 2nd photo, though, is "less scary" for reasons beyond cosmetics like the bucolic hue. One would rather someone with ill intentions be armed with the latter gun. No guarantee of less carnage, obviously, but it does add that extra step. I imagine law enforcement is trained to fire back while a shooter is re-loading (I could be wrong).
But functionally identical, you're correct.
Who's firing back though? You want everyone disarmed, don't you?
In any case, I've been round and round on this one. Go ahead and ban hi-capacity mags. I don't really have a problem with that, although it won't have any real practical effect. Watch the linked video to see why. Those are Marines, yes, but it's not rocket science. Anyone who practices it can learn a fast magazine exchange.
And let's say you want to ban external magazines altogether. Even with a bolt action rifle with an internal magazine, a proficient marksman can fire twenty or more aimed shots per minute and reload with a stripper clip in maybe four or five seconds.
Link - ( New Window )
Either you possess exceedingly poor reading comprehension skills, or you didn't read what I wrote.
I don't want that (if only for selfish reasons given that I like the range), nor did I state as much anywhere on this or any other thread. In fact I wrote something directly contradictory yesterday circa east coast Jeopardy.
Nor did I assuredly advocate banning high cap magazines as a solution, only said that it's something to consider as part of making progress toward reducing gun murders.
Let me know if any of that is not clear enough for you.
There are some common sense measures I think make sense that should be federally mandated. Many are mentioned. Intensive background checks to own a gun, mandatory safety training that needs to be re-certified periodically, magazine capacity limits, automatic weapon restrictions, etc.
I do understand the NRA perspective of if you give even a millimeter they'll take a foot and gradually chip away at our "freedoms", but I think that POV does them more harm than good (among their detractors) and they could make some common sense compromise that isn't even a middle ground, it's more on their side, that would be seen as true compromise comparatively speaking.
However, I still believe the knee jerk reaction to each mass killing is ill-informed, presumptive and misplaced, because IMO most mass killings would not and will not be prevented by even removing 100% (or whatever realistic percent a complete ban would get) of the legal and registered firearms.
Since 1934 since they were banned, there has been 2 murders committed with legally owned machine guns. The only way a private citizen can own one is by obtaining a class 3 licence. You give up a few constitutional rights to get that.
Appears the regulations in place are working just fine.
Other than that, agree with the rest.
Since 1934 since they were banned, there has been 2 murders committed with legally owned machine guns. The only way a private citizen can own one is by obtaining a class 3 licence. You give up a few constitutional rights to get that.
Appears the regulations in place are working just fine.
Other than that, agree with the rest.
I'd just close the trust loophole for automatic weapons or close the trust loophole in general.
It might have even been already closed, Obama had been trying to do it for a while through executive order. It allowed people to create trusts or incorporate and buy guns, specifically illegal guns like machine guns or other illegal gun parts like some silencers, without getting either local jurisdiction approval or even without a background check.
Otherwise nothing further.
but again, I'm certainly not an expert on this but I wouldn't be surprised if the bulk of gun violence is perpetrated by non-legal gun owners.
So all the banning and regulations I'm not sure what it will change, but people still scream for it.
so it's why I feel some common sense control measures might be a good step.