Thoughts and Prayers

[bigb]

Would love to hear her selective data representation around mass shootings, instead of homicides.

No matter your position (the generic your, not you specifically) any data presented would be selective. It’s impossible to bring all the data for both views into a discussion.
I posted this here because the subject got brought up about modeling Australia’s system.

 

[RandyForRubio]

No. They were illegally modified, fully automatic.

Again, I think both should be banned.

I too, think illegally modified guns are bad.

You're still missing the point.

Automatic rifles are so expensive, and require so many checks/paperwork/time that they have never been used in a shooting. We're not talking modified versions, we're talking legit automatic rifles. Do a little research, please. You are showing your ignorance.

There is absolutely no reason to ban something that isn't, and hasn't been a problem.

 

[Archie Moses]

I too, think illegally modified guns are bad.

You're still missing the point.

Automatic rifles are so expensive, and require so many checks/paperwork/time that they have never been used in a shooting. We're not talking modified versions, we're talking legit automatic rifles. Do a little research, please. You are showing your ignorance.

There is absolutely no reason to ban something that isn't, and hasn't been a problem.

What part of I think both types of guns should be banned are you not following?

Do you own a fully automatic rifle by chance?

 

[franklin]

No matter your position (the generic your, not you specifically) any data presented would be selective. It’s impossible to bring all the data for both views into a discussion.
I posted this here because the subject got brought up about modeling Australia’s system.

I've read several studies lately and the amount of mind gimmickry reporting was par the course. Yes, many studies exclude non-terrorist attacks when discussing school shootings and yes many exclude @Wes Mantooth 's good article side of this about in-home violence when discussing mass shootings. And yes, "mass shooting" is a term that who the hell knows what definitive number was decided upon. So yeah, data is parsed.

 

[♪alt13]

not commenting on the specific accuracy of either your statement or Thriller's - - just pointing out that 66% of Americans wanting STRICTER gun control laws does not negate the idea that 85% of Americans might support gun control. The higher number would include those satisfied with current laws who might not favor stricter controls.

Nope that's silly. Nowhere has Thriller ever said that he is happy with current law. You can't argue for stricter gun control and use a group of people who are happy with the current laws as part of your argument.

Again, there's an argument to be made. Instead of making that argument Thriller weakened his position. It drives me crazy when he does this especially when I agree with him.

 

[BabyPeterzz]

No matter your position (the generic your, not you specifically) any data presented would be selective. It’s impossible to bring all the data for both views into a discussion.
I posted this here because the subject got brought up about modeling Australia’s system.

Agreed. The counter argument for the pro-gun side is Switzerland. Also apples and oranges.

But I think for this discussion, and the gun discussion as a whole, would be better served centered around mass shootings and domestic terrorism, as homicide is a problem every modern industrialized nation deals with. Mass shootings not so much.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[fishonjazz]

Agreed. The counter argument for the pro-gun side is Switzerland. Also apples and oranges.

But I think for this discussion, and the gun discussion as a whole, would be better served centered around mass shootings and domestic terrorism, as homicide is a problem every modern industrialized nation deals with. Mass shootings not so much.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed.

 

[bigb]

Agreed. The counter argument for the pro-gun side is Switzerland. Also apples and oranges.

But I think for this discussion, and the gun discussion as a whole, would be better served centered around mass shootings and domestic terrorism, as homicide is a problem every modern industrialized nation deals with. Mass shootings not so much.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed

 

[RandyForRubio]

What part of I think both types of guns should be banned are you not following?

Do you own a fully automatic rifle by chance?

I understand you think both should be banned.

What I don't understand, is why you think automatic rifles should be banned when there has been no issue with them, at all. Why ban something that isn't a problem? And really, what I'm trying to get through to you, is that you should do a little research before you talk out or your ***.

And no, I don't own an automatic rifle. Don't even own a semi-auto.

 

[Archie Moses]

I understand you think both should be banned.

What I don't understand, is why you think automatic rifles should be banned when there has been no issue with them, at all. Why ban something that isn't a problem? And really, what I'm trying to get through to you, is that you should do a little research before you talk out or your ***.

And no, I don't own an automatic rifle. Don't even own a semi-auto.

I've already answered that, numerous times too. It's getting old being told to do research or that I'm ignorant on the subject when I'm not even saying much outside of I think they should be banned, guy. Saying I think they should be banned does not equate to me talking out if my ***. I also already acknowledged I shouldn't have said fully automatic instead of semi automatic but still even said I'd want both banned.

If anyone has talked out of their ***, it's you. You've put words in my mouth, misread what I've written and have condescendingly made **** up like "I bet you have no idea how ARs are purchased, do you?" Not true, I have first hand experience in purchasing an AR, guy. It was also easier for the Florida shooter to buy an AR easier than a pistol. Explain that one to me, will you, ol wise and well researched AR savant guy. You lumped AR to mean AR-15. You've said there's never been a fully automatic gun used in crime, but spoke out of your *** again. Yes, yes there has been.
https://www.thejacknews.com/law/gun...weapons-only-used-in-three-crimes-since-1934/

I can't think of one good, logical reason of why someone needs a ****ing assault rifle. It's bizarre to me you're trying to bust my balls cause I want all ARs, regardless of fire rate or crime, banned. To me, it makes absolute sense that if semi automatic ARs are banned, which are used all the time in mass shootings, then why not ban fully automatic ones too? No one needs a god damn fully automatic, John Rambo, ****ing machine gun imo. It's going to be hard to convince me otherwise too.

 

[ONE LOVE]

Who here really thinks giving teachers guns is the answer?

LOL... it's getting really ridiculous now.

 

[Keefe]

Who here really thinks giving teachers guns is the answer?

LOL... it's getting really ridiculous now.

Def not me. I wouldn’t trust more than 2-4 people in my building with a gun, and I’m not one of them.

 

[Keefe]

Is anyone against closing this loophole on buying guns from unlicensed sellers?

Seems like that’s the obvious first step.

Then, tightening the reins on background checks for those with mental illnesses or with violent criminal backgrounds.

My one buddy suggested taxing ammo and guns more and using 100% of that increased revenue on security in schools, whether that be actual security personnel, metal detectors, or something else. Seems like a reasonable idea.

 

[franklin]

Agreed. The counter argument for the pro-gun side is Switzerland. Also apples and oranges.

But I think for this discussion, and the gun discussion as a whole, would be better served centered around mass shootings and domestic terrorism, as homicide is a problem every modern industrialized nation deals with. Mass shootings not so much.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Speaking of apples and oranges, why doesn't anyone ever consider heritage into these discussions? I've read studies claiming that high levels of suicide are inversely correlated to mass killings. So, are we supposed to start encouraging these psychopaths to commit suicide? Or what about the mass killings events in the UK? They have a ******** compared to most other countries. We have more similarities to a UK-type society than any other. So maybe the violence is a cultural or genetic problem?

 

[ONE LOVE]

 

[JAZZGASM]

Handguns kill FAR more people than assault rifles. Yes, semi-auto rifles, like the AR-15 have been used in some mass shootings, but usually alongside handguns. Handguns are more easily concealed, and are effective at short range.

Banning semi-auto "assault weapons" won't solve anything. If you take away assault weapons, there are lots of other legal guns. A shotgun in a crowd would be devastating, especially a high magazine shotgun with a choke (to spread the stream of pellets). A 12 gauge 00 shotgun shell holds nine pellets, each the rough size of a .32 caliber bullet. And shotguns don't really even need to be aimed.

If you illegalize all guns these idjits will turn to suicide bombs, fertilizer bombs, arson, cars through crowds, etc. Hell, even flamethrowers are legal to own in the U.S., and Tesla is now making them, and sold $10M worth in 4 days. Can you imagine what a flamethrower could do in a crowd? Ugh.

Unfortunately, I do not see any easy fix. It starts with reasonable restrictions on purchase, required disclosure and cooperation among the States and Fed. to share background information, etc. It continues with investment in better mental health care.

I personally don't care whether guns are legal or not. There are lots of senseless deaths in this country that could be prevented. Alcohol deaths kill more people than guns. If we are for preserving human life, as a country, we are somewhat hypocritical when prohibition cannot be upheld(people need their drinky), and the laws for killing or severely injuring when one drinks and drives is often a slap on the wrist. My Uncle suffered a traumatic brain injury from getting hit from a drunk driver. It left him helpless, and the driver served no jail time, just lost his license for a few months. In California, misdemeanor negligent vehicular manslaughter has a sentence up to one year (other circumstances such as excess speeding, etc., can increase the amount). Max sentence is generally 10 years. Not a lot of punishment for taking a life IMO.

Then there is abortion...

To be quite frank, I don't think a human life is worth much, and based on historical legislation in this country, our leaders tend to agree.

 

[fishonjazz]

Is anyone against closing this loophole on buying guns from unlicensed sellers?

Seems like that’s the obvious first step.

Then, tightening the reins on background checks for those with mental illnesses or with violent criminal backgrounds.

My one buddy suggested taxing ammo and guns more and using 100% of that increased revenue on security in schools, whether that be actual security personnel, metal detectors, or something else. Seems like a reasonable idea.

all good stuff

 

[bigb]

Is anyone against closing this loophole on buying guns from unlicensed sellers?

Seems like that’s the obvious first step.

Then, tightening the reins on background checks for those with mental illnesses or with violent criminal backgrounds.

My one buddy suggested taxing ammo and guns more and using 100% of that increased revenue on security in schools, whether that be actual security personnel, metal detectors, or something else. Seems like a reasonable idea.

I personally think all sales should go through a dealer, with a background check.
The mental health thing is an obvious. I worry about the slippery slope with doctor/patient confidentiality. I fully admit I don’t know enough about this to speak on it. If a patient tells his doctor he’s having violent thoughts, is the doctor even allowed to tell the government?
I wouldn’t be opposed to increasing the taxes on guns and ammo, as long as it’s used for that purpose. I have my doubts it would actually end up there.

 

[Gameface]

Is anyone against closing this loophole on buying guns from unlicensed sellers?

Seems like that’s the obvious first step.

Then, tightening the reins on background checks for those with mental illnesses or with violent criminal backgrounds.

My one buddy suggested taxing ammo and guns more and using 100% of that increased revenue on security in schools, whether that be actual security personnel, metal detectors, or something else. Seems like a reasonable idea.

I'm now fully in favor of background checks on ALL gun sales.

I'm also in favor of better background checks. I'm thinking more than just sending in a check to the FBI the purchaser needs to go get a notarized copy indicating no disqualifying mental health issues, no domestic abuse and no felonies from their local jurisdiction. I also think vets should get a form when they seperate with a go/no-go on gun ownership depending on their disciplinary history in the military. If active duty I think they should get approval through their command in order to process a background check.

I'm torn on heavy taxes on ammo. I want people who do own guns to practice with them and become experts with them. I wouldn't want to discourage that. I owned an AR-15 for a few months. I sold it because I was not able to shoot it accurately enough to enjoy shooting it and ammo prices were too high for me to shoot it enough to increase my accuracy. Easily cost me over $100 in ammo to take it out and target practice. At the time I believe it cost about $0.50/round. Not sure what that ammo costs now. I want to put a few thousand rounds through any gun I buy before I consider myself proficient with it, as well as feeling that the gun is reliable.

I had an early model (one still made in the Czech Republic) Springfield XD-40. I had fired almost 800 rounds through that gun before it started jamming regularly. It was an issue caused because the gun was originally designed to fire 9mm and the .40cal version would sometimes have the empty magazine slide-lock lever get hit by the nose of the larger .40cal round, locking the slide back as if the magazine was empty even though there were still rounds in the magazine. After that I really felt like I needed to fire a gun a lot before I accepted it as being reliable.

I also feel that there should be mandatory gun ownership training as a prerequisite to requesting a background check.

We also need mechanisms for automatically reporting people unfit to own firearms.

 

[franklin]

Does anyone have a biometric safe? I could actually be quicker on the draw with my weapon chambered and by my bedside than where I currently keep it without one in the hole. Plus, I wouldn't have any issues to worry about as far as kids go.

Something like this: Amazon product ASIN B015PI6P3M