America's Gun Violence

1252253255257258262

Comments

  • RYMERYME Wisconsin Posts: 722
    RYME said:
    mace1229 said:
    Hence the need to have minimum federal regulations. A previous poster linked to evidence that many gun crimes in California are with guns purchased at Nevada gun shows, the "gun show loophole." I posted a link to evidence that 26,000 gun crimes were committed with guns purchased at gun shows in a given year. Ahh, that pesky gun show loophole. People who can't or shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun, get them through gun shows, flea markets or other private sales of guns. It would seem, closing that loophole through passage of federal regulations/law would be a no brainer (I have no idea where the CA shooter obtained his gun, could have been perfectly legal, in which case its just another responsible gun owner who one day decided he didn't want to be responsible anymore). Wayne LaPierre was for it before he was against it.

    Mace's comparison of gun deaths to second hand smoke and McDonald's consumption is laughable. I have a choice in those instances, I try not to expose myself to second hand smoke and I rarely if ever eat McDonald's. There's not much I can do if someone decides to go on a shooting rampage where I'm present, except CC, which I'm not going to do, learn CPR and First Aid, I have, have situational awareness, I try to and hope that I don't run into a responsible gun owner who decides he's having a bad day and takes it out wherever I happen to be (I avoid shopping at Walmart). But hey, whats 5,000 murders and 15,000 suicides when you have cancer, obesity and car wrecks to worry about?
    That is completely illegally, and can result in jail time for the buyer.
    I know for sure in Nevada, and I believe in every other state as well, even without a background check you are still required to be a resident of the state you are purchasing the gun in. 
    What I am not entirely sure on is how much of a responsibility the seller has in this case, but no matter what it is an illegal transaction since the buyer cannot legally buy guns in Nevada and the California buyer can face serious penalties and lose their right to own a gun. I believe the seller can be held responsible too, but I am not as confident about that. Agreed that a mandatory background would prevent that, and is one reason I said I am for them. If you want to debate technicalities, I wouldn't call it a loophole simply because it isn't legal. But that doesn't really matter in my opinion, call it what you want. 
    I am still very unclear why you essentially make a debate out of everything I have said. My comparison is laughable? It is? Even though that wasn't my comparison, and what I said was when that argument is brought up I respond with just because there are second hand smoking deaths that doesn't mean that we can't try to minimize the gun deaths as well. I really don't think I said anything you would disagree with, which is why it is puzzling to me why every comment of yours for the last 2 days is directed towards me. Is all your hatred for guns just directed at me?

    Mace 1229,
    You have put forth rational and informed insight on this and other topics.
    What I don't get is some of the opposition.  Rather than engage in a back and forth discussion with linear thought and dialogue some choose to snipe back with insults (laughable xcetera)
    He "tries to and hopes to avoid running into responsible gun owners who are having a bad day and snap."
    How should we the responsible gun owners respond to that?
    Gee Ryme, how would YOU respond to it?

    Gee  Halifax, my first response to it is the suggestion that you  learn how to have a polite discussions & conversations with people.  Arrogance is not a plus.
     Also I would say that people like myself and Mace 1229 aren't the type of people you need to worry about.

  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 6,314
    unsung said:
    RYME said:
    CM189191 said:
    RYME said:
    CM189191 said:
    unsung said:
    unsung said:

    It used to be part of school curriculum.   Bring gun safety classes back, totally agree.
    So who best to regulate that other than the state?  Issue state licenses for gun owners that reflect basic competency.  

    If run through the DMV you wouldn't have much more admin cost since the brick and mortar already exists.
    Some States already do, Illinois being one, Chicago is just getting worse.  Guns can’t be blamed, that is just a cop-out.  Nothing will change until people value life.  How do we get that done?

    Yes, that's obviously the most reasonable explanation.  Other countries just value life more than the US does. 

    Fun fact: The Second Amendment was ratified to preserve slavery

    There is literally a direct line from the 2nd Amendment to devaluation of human life.
    https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/history/people/indian-killer-andrew-jackson-deserves-top-spot-on-list-of-worst-us-presidents/
    Read about the original founding days of the Democrat party.  Above
    That is wrong sir the second amendment was not to ratify slavery, rather it was a put in place to allow the citizenry to be able to fight back against a tyrannical government.  Please read what the second amendment was actually for.
    https://www.livescience.com/26485-second-amendment.html

    Neither of the links you provide appear to be relevant to your point.

    Also, your point is wrong. 
    I can multitask.
    The second amendment was to give the citizenry the right to keep and bear arms, so that they could fight back against a tyrannical government if need be.  The Second Amendment had nothing to do with preserving slavery. That fun fact listed above is simply wrong and was made up.
    I mentioned Andrew Jackson simply because he was the founder of the Democrat Party, a big-time slave owner and a big-time Indian killer.
    He should never have been put on the $20 bill.  Just ask any Native American what they think of him, and any African Americans who know the true history about slavery, who was for it and who was against it at the time, and who implemented it.
    The "tyrannical government" argument is old and ridiculous.

    Back then the TG would come at you with similar weapons.  Now the TG has tanks...tactical nukes...drones, etc.

    Give that argument up.  Your pussy ass AR-15 isn't going to help you if the TG comes at you.
    How is that working in Afghanistan?  How did it work in Vietnam?  Stupid to even bring up nukes, like the govt would use one at home.

    Right. The current situation in the US bears so much relationship to that of Afghanistan that of course it's a valid argument for continuing the status quo.
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 11,979
    RYME said:
    RYME said:
    mace1229 said:
    Hence the need to have minimum federal regulations. A previous poster linked to evidence that many gun crimes in California are with guns purchased at Nevada gun shows, the "gun show loophole." I posted a link to evidence that 26,000 gun crimes were committed with guns purchased at gun shows in a given year. Ahh, that pesky gun show loophole. People who can't or shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun, get them through gun shows, flea markets or other private sales of guns. It would seem, closing that loophole through passage of federal regulations/law would be a no brainer (I have no idea where the CA shooter obtained his gun, could have been perfectly legal, in which case its just another responsible gun owner who one day decided he didn't want to be responsible anymore). Wayne LaPierre was for it before he was against it.

    Mace's comparison of gun deaths to second hand smoke and McDonald's consumption is laughable. I have a choice in those instances, I try not to expose myself to second hand smoke and I rarely if ever eat McDonald's. There's not much I can do if someone decides to go on a shooting rampage where I'm present, except CC, which I'm not going to do, learn CPR and First Aid, I have, have situational awareness, I try to and hope that I don't run into a responsible gun owner who decides he's having a bad day and takes it out wherever I happen to be (I avoid shopping at Walmart). But hey, whats 5,000 murders and 15,000 suicides when you have cancer, obesity and car wrecks to worry about?
    That is completely illegally, and can result in jail time for the buyer.
    I know for sure in Nevada, and I believe in every other state as well, even without a background check you are still required to be a resident of the state you are purchasing the gun in. 
    What I am not entirely sure on is how much of a responsibility the seller has in this case, but no matter what it is an illegal transaction since the buyer cannot legally buy guns in Nevada and the California buyer can face serious penalties and lose their right to own a gun. I believe the seller can be held responsible too, but I am not as confident about that. Agreed that a mandatory background would prevent that, and is one reason I said I am for them. If you want to debate technicalities, I wouldn't call it a loophole simply because it isn't legal. But that doesn't really matter in my opinion, call it what you want. 
    I am still very unclear why you essentially make a debate out of everything I have said. My comparison is laughable? It is? Even though that wasn't my comparison, and what I said was when that argument is brought up I respond with just because there are second hand smoking deaths that doesn't mean that we can't try to minimize the gun deaths as well. I really don't think I said anything you would disagree with, which is why it is puzzling to me why every comment of yours for the last 2 days is directed towards me. Is all your hatred for guns just directed at me?

    Mace 1229,
    You have put forth rational and informed insight on this and other topics.
    What I don't get is some of the opposition.  Rather than engage in a back and forth discussion with linear thought and dialogue some choose to snipe back with insults (laughable xcetera)
    He "tries to and hopes to avoid running into responsible gun owners who are having a bad day and snap."
    How should we the responsible gun owners respond to that?
    Gee Ryme, how would YOU respond to it?

    Gee  Halifax, my first response to it is the suggestion that you  learn how to have a polite discussions & conversations with people.  Arrogance is not a plus.
     Also I would say that people like myself and Mace 1229 aren't the type of people you need to worry about.

    why am i not shocked you didn't answer his question.  you never do.  you just complain about everyone else's responses. 
    T minus 9 days and counting..........
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 11,979
    unsung said:
    RYME said:
    CM189191 said:
    RYME said:
    CM189191 said:
    unsung said:
    unsung said:

    It used to be part of school curriculum.   Bring gun safety classes back, totally agree.
    So who best to regulate that other than the state?  Issue state licenses for gun owners that reflect basic competency.  

    If run through the DMV you wouldn't have much more admin cost since the brick and mortar already exists.
    Some States already do, Illinois being one, Chicago is just getting worse.  Guns can’t be blamed, that is just a cop-out.  Nothing will change until people value life.  How do we get that done?

    Yes, that's obviously the most reasonable explanation.  Other countries just value life more than the US does. 

    Fun fact: The Second Amendment was ratified to preserve slavery

    There is literally a direct line from the 2nd Amendment to devaluation of human life.
    https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/history/people/indian-killer-andrew-jackson-deserves-top-spot-on-list-of-worst-us-presidents/
    Read about the original founding days of the Democrat party.  Above
    That is wrong sir the second amendment was not to ratify slavery, rather it was a put in place to allow the citizenry to be able to fight back against a tyrannical government.  Please read what the second amendment was actually for.
    https://www.livescience.com/26485-second-amendment.html

    Neither of the links you provide appear to be relevant to your point.

    Also, your point is wrong. 
    I can multitask.
    The second amendment was to give the citizenry the right to keep and bear arms, so that they could fight back against a tyrannical government if need be.  The Second Amendment had nothing to do with preserving slavery. That fun fact listed above is simply wrong and was made up.
    I mentioned Andrew Jackson simply because he was the founder of the Democrat Party, a big-time slave owner and a big-time Indian killer.
    He should never have been put on the $20 bill.  Just ask any Native American what they think of him, and any African Americans who know the true history about slavery, who was for it and who was against it at the time, and who implemented it.
    The "tyrannical government" argument is old and ridiculous.

    Back then the TG would come at you with similar weapons.  Now the TG has tanks...tactical nukes...drones, etc.

    Give that argument up.  Your pussy ass AR-15 isn't going to help you if the TG comes at you.
    How is that working in Afghanistan?  How did it work in Vietnam?  Stupid to even bring up nukes, like the govt would use one at home.
    they don't need nukes to fuck up the citizens. do you honestly believe the citizens can take the government?
    T minus 9 days and counting..........
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 11,979
    mace1229 said:
    RYME said:
    mace1229 said:
    Hence the need to have minimum federal regulations. A previous poster linked to evidence that many gun crimes in California are with guns purchased at Nevada gun shows, the "gun show loophole." I posted a link to evidence that 26,000 gun crimes were committed with guns purchased at gun shows in a given year. Ahh, that pesky gun show loophole. People who can't or shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun, get them through gun shows, flea markets or other private sales of guns. It would seem, closing that loophole through passage of federal regulations/law would be a no brainer (I have no idea where the CA shooter obtained his gun, could have been perfectly legal, in which case its just another responsible gun owner who one day decided he didn't want to be responsible anymore). Wayne LaPierre was for it before he was against it.

    Mace's comparison of gun deaths to second hand smoke and McDonald's consumption is laughable. I have a choice in those instances, I try not to expose myself to second hand smoke and I rarely if ever eat McDonald's. There's not much I can do if someone decides to go on a shooting rampage where I'm present, except CC, which I'm not going to do, learn CPR and First Aid, I have, have situational awareness, I try to and hope that I don't run into a responsible gun owner who decides he's having a bad day and takes it out wherever I happen to be (I avoid shopping at Walmart). But hey, whats 5,000 murders and 15,000 suicides when you have cancer, obesity and car wrecks to worry about?
    That is completely illegally, and can result in jail time for the buyer.
    I know for sure in Nevada, and I believe in every other state as well, even without a background check you are still required to be a resident of the state you are purchasing the gun in. 
    What I am not entirely sure on is how much of a responsibility the seller has in this case, but no matter what it is an illegal transaction since the buyer cannot legally buy guns in Nevada and the California buyer can face serious penalties and lose their right to own a gun. I believe the seller can be held responsible too, but I am not as confident about that. Agreed that a mandatory background would prevent that, and is one reason I said I am for them. If you want to debate technicalities, I wouldn't call it a loophole simply because it isn't legal. But that doesn't really matter in my opinion, call it what you want. 
    I am still very unclear why you essentially make a debate out of everything I have said. My comparison is laughable? It is? Even though that wasn't my comparison, and what I said was when that argument is brought up I respond with just because there are second hand smoking deaths that doesn't mean that we can't try to minimize the gun deaths as well. I really don't think I said anything you would disagree with, which is why it is puzzling to me why every comment of yours for the last 2 days is directed towards me. Is all your hatred for guns just directed at me?

    Mace 1229,
    You have put forth rational and informed insight on this and other topics.
    What I don't get is some of the opposition.  Rather than engage in a back and forth discussion with linear thought and dialogue some choose to snipe back with insults (laughable xcetera)
    He "tries to and hopes to avoid running into responsible gun owners who are having a bad day and snap."
    How should we the responsible gun owners respond to that?
    Yeah, I've come to the conclusion some just don't want to have a rational conversation about guns. I didn't compare gun deaths to smoking, I don't fear a ban, but keeps bringing it up multiple times that I have for some reason.
    I've never said it is too late or too early to talk about gun control. I was on here the day after the vegas shooting talking about it.
    Its amusing at this point how he keeps bringing those up over and over and hasn't answered a single one of my questions.
    i took your post as comparing the two as well, not just halifax. well, not comparing, it seemed more of a deflection. 
    T minus 9 days and counting..........
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 11,979
    RYME said:
    Gee  Halifax, my first response to it is the suggestion that you  learn how to have a polite discussions & conversations with people.  Arrogance is not a plus.
     Also I would say that people like myself and Mace 1229 aren't the type of people you need to worry about.
    and that isn't at all what he was asking. 
    T minus 9 days and counting..........
  • CM189191CM189191 Minneapolis via ChicagoPosts: 3,099
    unsung said:
    RYME said:
    CM189191 said:
    RYME said:
    CM189191 said:
    unsung said:
    unsung said:

    It used to be part of school curriculum.   Bring gun safety classes back, totally agree.
    So who best to regulate that other than the state?  Issue state licenses for gun owners that reflect basic competency.  

    If run through the DMV you wouldn't have much more admin cost since the brick and mortar already exists.
    Some States already do, Illinois being one, Chicago is just getting worse.  Guns can’t be blamed, that is just a cop-out.  Nothing will change until people value life.  How do we get that done?

    Yes, that's obviously the most reasonable explanation.  Other countries just value life more than the US does. 

    Fun fact: The Second Amendment was ratified to preserve slavery

    There is literally a direct line from the 2nd Amendment to devaluation of human life.
    https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/history/people/indian-killer-andrew-jackson-deserves-top-spot-on-list-of-worst-us-presidents/
    Read about the original founding days of the Democrat party.  Above
    That is wrong sir the second amendment was not to ratify slavery, rather it was a put in place to allow the citizenry to be able to fight back against a tyrannical government.  Please read what the second amendment was actually for.
    https://www.livescience.com/26485-second-amendment.html

    Neither of the links you provide appear to be relevant to your point.

    Also, your point is wrong. 
    I can multitask.
    The second amendment was to give the citizenry the right to keep and bear arms, so that they could fight back against a tyrannical government if need be.  The Second Amendment had nothing to do with preserving slavery. That fun fact listed above is simply wrong and was made up.
    I mentioned Andrew Jackson simply because he was the founder of the Democrat Party, a big-time slave owner and a big-time Indian killer.
    He should never have been put on the $20 bill.  Just ask any Native American what they think of him, and any African Americans who know the true history about slavery, who was for it and who was against it at the time, and who implemented it.
    The "tyrannical government" argument is old and ridiculous.

    Back then the TG would come at you with similar weapons.  Now the TG has tanks...tactical nukes...drones, etc.

    Give that argument up.  Your pussy ass AR-15 isn't going to help you if the TG comes at you.
    How is that working in Afghanistan?  How did it work in Vietnam?  Stupid to even bring up nukes, like the govt would use one at home.
    Well.... Since you asked

    Afghanistan now has a high gun ownership per capita. And a high rate of gun deaths. 

    Conversely, Vietnam has low gun ownership and low gun death rate per capita. 

    See how that works? 
    WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 6,314
    RYME said:
    RYME said:
    mace1229 said:
    Hence the need to have minimum federal regulations. A previous poster linked to evidence that many gun crimes in California are with guns purchased at Nevada gun shows, the "gun show loophole." I posted a link to evidence that 26,000 gun crimes were committed with guns purchased at gun shows in a given year. Ahh, that pesky gun show loophole. People who can't or shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun, get them through gun shows, flea markets or other private sales of guns. It would seem, closing that loophole through passage of federal regulations/law would be a no brainer (I have no idea where the CA shooter obtained his gun, could have been perfectly legal, in which case its just another responsible gun owner who one day decided he didn't want to be responsible anymore). Wayne LaPierre was for it before he was against it.

    Mace's comparison of gun deaths to second hand smoke and McDonald's consumption is laughable. I have a choice in those instances, I try not to expose myself to second hand smoke and I rarely if ever eat McDonald's. There's not much I can do if someone decides to go on a shooting rampage where I'm present, except CC, which I'm not going to do, learn CPR and First Aid, I have, have situational awareness, I try to and hope that I don't run into a responsible gun owner who decides he's having a bad day and takes it out wherever I happen to be (I avoid shopping at Walmart). But hey, whats 5,000 murders and 15,000 suicides when you have cancer, obesity and car wrecks to worry about?
    That is completely illegally, and can result in jail time for the buyer.
    I know for sure in Nevada, and I believe in every other state as well, even without a background check you are still required to be a resident of the state you are purchasing the gun in. 
    What I am not entirely sure on is how much of a responsibility the seller has in this case, but no matter what it is an illegal transaction since the buyer cannot legally buy guns in Nevada and the California buyer can face serious penalties and lose their right to own a gun. I believe the seller can be held responsible too, but I am not as confident about that. Agreed that a mandatory background would prevent that, and is one reason I said I am for them. If you want to debate technicalities, I wouldn't call it a loophole simply because it isn't legal. But that doesn't really matter in my opinion, call it what you want. 
    I am still very unclear why you essentially make a debate out of everything I have said. My comparison is laughable? It is? Even though that wasn't my comparison, and what I said was when that argument is brought up I respond with just because there are second hand smoking deaths that doesn't mean that we can't try to minimize the gun deaths as well. I really don't think I said anything you would disagree with, which is why it is puzzling to me why every comment of yours for the last 2 days is directed towards me. Is all your hatred for guns just directed at me?

    Mace 1229,
    You have put forth rational and informed insight on this and other topics.
    What I don't get is some of the opposition.  Rather than engage in a back and forth discussion with linear thought and dialogue some choose to snipe back with insults (laughable xcetera)
    He "tries to and hopes to avoid running into responsible gun owners who are having a bad day and snap."
    How should we the responsible gun owners respond to that?
    Gee Ryme, how would YOU respond to it?

    Gee  Halifax, my first response to it is the suggestion that you  learn how to have a polite discussions & conversations with people.  Arrogance is not a plus.
     Also I would say that people like myself and Mace 1229 aren't the type of people you need to worry about.

    This might be an opportune time to consider practicing what you preach 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 1,654
    edited November 15
    mace1229 said:
    RYME said:
    mace1229 said:
    Hence the need to have minimum federal regulations. A previous poster linked to evidence that many gun crimes in California are with guns purchased at Nevada gun shows, the "gun show loophole." I posted a link to evidence that 26,000 gun crimes were committed with guns purchased at gun shows in a given year. Ahh, that pesky gun show loophole. People who can't or shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun, get them through gun shows, flea markets or other private sales of guns. It would seem, closing that loophole through passage of federal regulations/law would be a no brainer (I have no idea where the CA shooter obtained his gun, could have been perfectly legal, in which case its just another responsible gun owner who one day decided he didn't want to be responsible anymore). Wayne LaPierre was for it before he was against it.

    Mace's comparison of gun deaths to second hand smoke and McDonald's consumption is laughable. I have a choice in those instances, I try not to expose myself to second hand smoke and I rarely if ever eat McDonald's. There's not much I can do if someone decides to go on a shooting rampage where I'm present, except CC, which I'm not going to do, learn CPR and First Aid, I have, have situational awareness, I try to and hope that I don't run into a responsible gun owner who decides he's having a bad day and takes it out wherever I happen to be (I avoid shopping at Walmart). But hey, whats 5,000 murders and 15,000 suicides when you have cancer, obesity and car wrecks to worry about?
    That is completely illegally, and can result in jail time for the buyer.
    I know for sure in Nevada, and I believe in every other state as well, even without a background check you are still required to be a resident of the state you are purchasing the gun in. 
    What I am not entirely sure on is how much of a responsibility the seller has in this case, but no matter what it is an illegal transaction since the buyer cannot legally buy guns in Nevada and the California buyer can face serious penalties and lose their right to own a gun. I believe the seller can be held responsible too, but I am not as confident about that. Agreed that a mandatory background would prevent that, and is one reason I said I am for them. If you want to debate technicalities, I wouldn't call it a loophole simply because it isn't legal. But that doesn't really matter in my opinion, call it what you want. 
    I am still very unclear why you essentially make a debate out of everything I have said. My comparison is laughable? It is? Even though that wasn't my comparison, and what I said was when that argument is brought up I respond with just because there are second hand smoking deaths that doesn't mean that we can't try to minimize the gun deaths as well. I really don't think I said anything you would disagree with, which is why it is puzzling to me why every comment of yours for the last 2 days is directed towards me. Is all your hatred for guns just directed at me?

    Mace 1229,
    You have put forth rational and informed insight on this and other topics.
    What I don't get is some of the opposition.  Rather than engage in a back and forth discussion with linear thought and dialogue some choose to snipe back with insults (laughable xcetera)
    He "tries to and hopes to avoid running into responsible gun owners who are having a bad day and snap."
    How should we the responsible gun owners respond to that?
    Yeah, I've come to the conclusion some just don't want to have a rational conversation about guns. I didn't compare gun deaths to smoking, I don't fear a ban, but keeps bringing it up multiple times that I have for some reason.
    I've never said it is too late or too early to talk about gun control. I was on here the day after the vegas shooting talking about it.
    Its amusing at this point how he keeps bringing those up over and over and hasn't answered a single one of my questions.
    i took your post as comparing the two as well, not just halifax. well, not comparing, it seemed more of a deflection. 
    I'm not sure how it could be taken that way. I was asked if my opinion on gun control recently change. Part of my response was that not recently, but maybe 5-10 years ago and with several members of my family in law enforcement guns have been a part of our family life. And I hear that argument often about what kills more than guns.
    i can assume we all agree that more people die from heart disease and other health issues than guns. That's not even debatable, right? My response to those arguments is that could be true, but why does that mean we ignore gun control until that becomes the #1 killer? 
    I don't see that as making a comparison between the two, I just shared the views my family have to give a perspective on my background and how I respond to it, and I imagine many on here would have the same response. That's not me linking the two together, or trying to deflect, just me being open when trying to answer a question abut my history on this topic.
    Post edited by mace1229 on
  • With this kind of indifference, how can we expect anything to change?

    Twitter Slams Donald Trump For Tweeting Condolences About The Wrong Mass Shooting - HuffPost https://apple.news/ApuwnoqWlS2KURDZLfhsYiA
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • RYME said:
    RYME said:
    mace1229 said:
    Hence the need to have minimum federal regulations. A previous poster linked to evidence that many gun crimes in California are with guns purchased at Nevada gun shows, the "gun show loophole." I posted a link to evidence that 26,000 gun crimes were committed with guns purchased at gun shows in a given year. Ahh, that pesky gun show loophole. People who can't or shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun, get them through gun shows, flea markets or other private sales of guns. It would seem, closing that loophole through passage of federal regulations/law would be a no brainer (I have no idea where the CA shooter obtained his gun, could have been perfectly legal, in which case its just another responsible gun owner who one day decided he didn't want to be responsible anymore). Wayne LaPierre was for it before he was against it.

    Mace's comparison of gun deaths to second hand smoke and McDonald's consumption is laughable. I have a choice in those instances, I try not to expose myself to second hand smoke and I rarely if ever eat McDonald's. There's not much I can do if someone decides to go on a shooting rampage where I'm present, except CC, which I'm not going to do, learn CPR and First Aid, I have, have situational awareness, I try to and hope that I don't run into a responsible gun owner who decides he's having a bad day and takes it out wherever I happen to be (I avoid shopping at Walmart). But hey, whats 5,000 murders and 15,000 suicides when you have cancer, obesity and car wrecks to worry about?
    That is completely illegally, and can result in jail time for the buyer.
    I know for sure in Nevada, and I believe in every other state as well, even without a background check you are still required to be a resident of the state you are purchasing the gun in. 
    What I am not entirely sure on is how much of a responsibility the seller has in this case, but no matter what it is an illegal transaction since the buyer cannot legally buy guns in Nevada and the California buyer can face serious penalties and lose their right to own a gun. I believe the seller can be held responsible too, but I am not as confident about that. Agreed that a mandatory background would prevent that, and is one reason I said I am for them. If you want to debate technicalities, I wouldn't call it a loophole simply because it isn't legal. But that doesn't really matter in my opinion, call it what you want. 
    I am still very unclear why you essentially make a debate out of everything I have said. My comparison is laughable? It is? Even though that wasn't my comparison, and what I said was when that argument is brought up I respond with just because there are second hand smoking deaths that doesn't mean that we can't try to minimize the gun deaths as well. I really don't think I said anything you would disagree with, which is why it is puzzling to me why every comment of yours for the last 2 days is directed towards me. Is all your hatred for guns just directed at me?

    Mace 1229,
    You have put forth rational and informed insight on this and other topics.
    What I don't get is some of the opposition.  Rather than engage in a back and forth discussion with linear thought and dialogue some choose to snipe back with insults (laughable xcetera)
    He "tries to and hopes to avoid running into responsible gun owners who are having a bad day and snap."
    How should we the responsible gun owners respond to that?
    Gee Ryme, how would YOU respond to it?

    Gee  Halifax, my first response to it is the suggestion that you  learn how to have a polite discussions & conversations with people.  Arrogance is not a plus.
     Also I would say that people like myself and Mace 1229 aren't the type of people you need to worry about.

    If you’re armed, white males, maybe I do? Ignorance is bliss.
     
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 2,941
    Well, I've yet to see the weapon of choice named in the latest shooting, but based on the "high capacity magazines" found at the scene and the description of a semi auto rifle, I bet it's some sort of AR-15.

    C'mon people, either ban the damn thing or get rid of the high capacity mags! A fucking child could tell you what would help alleviate this issue. No citizen should be allowed to own such a type of weapon.
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • tbergs said:
    Well, I've yet to see the weapon of choice named in the latest shooting, but based on the "high capacity magazines" found at the scene and the description of a semi auto rifle, I bet it's some sort of AR-15.

    C'mon people, either ban the damn thing or get rid of the high capacity mags! A fucking child could tell you what would help alleviate this issue. No citizen should be allowed to own such a type of weapon.

    The AR15 sneak attack mass shooting is trending in the US.

    To be fair, it would likely be trending in other countries as well. Americans aren't more inherently evil or 'messed up' than, well, to use my own country... Canadians.

    It's just that we don't have access to such weaponry so we can't kill people with the same degree of ease and shock factor. The US' complacency on the issue facilitates these murders. I wonder if they get another one today?
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • RYMERYME Wisconsin Posts: 722
    RYME said:
    RYME said:
    mace1229 said:
    Hence the need to have minimum federal regulations. A previous poster linked to evidence that many gun crimes in California are with guns purchased at Nevada gun shows, the "gun show loophole." I posted a link to evidence that 26,000 gun crimes were committed with guns purchased at gun shows in a given year. Ahh, that pesky gun show loophole. People who can't or shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun, get them through gun shows, flea markets or other private sales of guns. It would seem, closing that loophole through passage of federal regulations/law would be a no brainer (I have no idea where the CA shooter obtained his gun, could have been perfectly legal, in which case its just another responsible gun owner who one day decided he didn't want to be responsible anymore). Wayne LaPierre was for it before he was against it.

    Mace's comparison of gun deaths to second hand smoke and McDonald's consumption is laughable. I have a choice in those instances, I try not to expose myself to second hand smoke and I rarely if ever eat McDonald's. There's not much I can do if someone decides to go on a shooting rampage where I'm present, except CC, which I'm not going to do, learn CPR and First Aid, I have, have situational awareness, I try to and hope that I don't run into a responsible gun owner who decides he's having a bad day and takes it out wherever I happen to be (I avoid shopping at Walmart). But hey, whats 5,000 murders and 15,000 suicides when you have cancer, obesity and car wrecks to worry about?
    That is completely illegally, and can result in jail time for the buyer.
    I know for sure in Nevada, and I believe in every other state as well, even without a background check you are still required to be a resident of the state you are purchasing the gun in. 
    What I am not entirely sure on is how much of a responsibility the seller has in this case, but no matter what it is an illegal transaction since the buyer cannot legally buy guns in Nevada and the California buyer can face serious penalties and lose their right to own a gun. I believe the seller can be held responsible too, but I am not as confident about that. Agreed that a mandatory background would prevent that, and is one reason I said I am for them. If you want to debate technicalities, I wouldn't call it a loophole simply because it isn't legal. But that doesn't really matter in my opinion, call it what you want. 
    I am still very unclear why you essentially make a debate out of everything I have said. My comparison is laughable? It is? Even though that wasn't my comparison, and what I said was when that argument is brought up I respond with just because there are second hand smoking deaths that doesn't mean that we can't try to minimize the gun deaths as well. I really don't think I said anything you would disagree with, which is why it is puzzling to me why every comment of yours for the last 2 days is directed towards me. Is all your hatred for guns just directed at me?

    Mace 1229,
    You have put forth rational and informed insight on this and other topics.
    What I don't get is some of the opposition.  Rather than engage in a back and forth discussion with linear thought and dialogue some choose to snipe back with insults (laughable xcetera)
    He "tries to and hopes to avoid running into responsible gun owners who are having a bad day and snap."
    How should we the responsible gun owners respond to that?
    Gee Ryme, how would YOU respond to it?

    Gee  Halifax, my first response to it is the suggestion that you  learn how to have a polite discussions & conversations with people.  Arrogance is not a plus.
     Also I would say that people like myself and Mace 1229 aren't the type of people you need to worry about.

    If you’re armed, white males, maybe I do? Ignorance is bliss.
     
    I ask this respectfully.  What do you mean if I'm armed, white male, maybe you do?
  • SmellymanSmellyman AsiaPosts: 2,862
    RYME said:
    RYME said:
    RYME said:
    mace1229 said:
    Hence the need to have minimum federal regulations. A previous poster linked to evidence that many gun crimes in California are with guns purchased at Nevada gun shows, the "gun show loophole." I posted a link to evidence that 26,000 gun crimes were committed with guns purchased at gun shows in a given year. Ahh, that pesky gun show loophole. People who can't or shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun, get them through gun shows, flea markets or other private sales of guns. It would seem, closing that loophole through passage of federal regulations/law would be a no brainer (I have no idea where the CA shooter obtained his gun, could have been perfectly legal, in which case its just another responsible gun owner who one day decided he didn't want to be responsible anymore). Wayne LaPierre was for it before he was against it.

    Mace's comparison of gun deaths to second hand smoke and McDonald's consumption is laughable. I have a choice in those instances, I try not to expose myself to second hand smoke and I rarely if ever eat McDonald's. There's not much I can do if someone decides to go on a shooting rampage where I'm present, except CC, which I'm not going to do, learn CPR and First Aid, I have, have situational awareness, I try to and hope that I don't run into a responsible gun owner who decides he's having a bad day and takes it out wherever I happen to be (I avoid shopping at Walmart). But hey, whats 5,000 murders and 15,000 suicides when you have cancer, obesity and car wrecks to worry about?
    That is completely illegally, and can result in jail time for the buyer.
    I know for sure in Nevada, and I believe in every other state as well, even without a background check you are still required to be a resident of the state you are purchasing the gun in. 
    What I am not entirely sure on is how much of a responsibility the seller has in this case, but no matter what it is an illegal transaction since the buyer cannot legally buy guns in Nevada and the California buyer can face serious penalties and lose their right to own a gun. I believe the seller can be held responsible too, but I am not as confident about that. Agreed that a mandatory background would prevent that, and is one reason I said I am for them. If you want to debate technicalities, I wouldn't call it a loophole simply because it isn't legal. But that doesn't really matter in my opinion, call it what you want. 
    I am still very unclear why you essentially make a debate out of everything I have said. My comparison is laughable? It is? Even though that wasn't my comparison, and what I said was when that argument is brought up I respond with just because there are second hand smoking deaths that doesn't mean that we can't try to minimize the gun deaths as well. I really don't think I said anything you would disagree with, which is why it is puzzling to me why every comment of yours for the last 2 days is directed towards me. Is all your hatred for guns just directed at me?

    Mace 1229,
    You have put forth rational and informed insight on this and other topics.
    What I don't get is some of the opposition.  Rather than engage in a back and forth discussion with linear thought and dialogue some choose to snipe back with insults (laughable xcetera)
    He "tries to and hopes to avoid running into responsible gun owners who are having a bad day and snap."
    How should we the responsible gun owners respond to that?
    Gee Ryme, how would YOU respond to it?

    Gee  Halifax, my first response to it is the suggestion that you  learn how to have a polite discussions & conversations with people.  Arrogance is not a plus.
     Also I would say that people like myself and Mace 1229 aren't the type of people you need to worry about.

    If you’re armed, white males, maybe I do? Ignorance is bliss.
     
    I ask this respectfully.  What do you mean if I'm armed, white male, maybe you do?
    But he always seemed so nice, he went to the same church as me.
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 11,979
    mace1229 said:
    mace1229 said:
    RYME said:
    mace1229 said:
    Hence the need to have minimum federal regulations. A previous poster linked to evidence that many gun crimes in California are with guns purchased at Nevada gun shows, the "gun show loophole." I posted a link to evidence that 26,000 gun crimes were committed with guns purchased at gun shows in a given year. Ahh, that pesky gun show loophole. People who can't or shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun, get them through gun shows, flea markets or other private sales of guns. It would seem, closing that loophole through passage of federal regulations/law would be a no brainer (I have no idea where the CA shooter obtained his gun, could have been perfectly legal, in which case its just another responsible gun owner who one day decided he didn't want to be responsible anymore). Wayne LaPierre was for it before he was against it.

    Mace's comparison of gun deaths to second hand smoke and McDonald's consumption is laughable. I have a choice in those instances, I try not to expose myself to second hand smoke and I rarely if ever eat McDonald's. There's not much I can do if someone decides to go on a shooting rampage where I'm present, except CC, which I'm not going to do, learn CPR and First Aid, I have, have situational awareness, I try to and hope that I don't run into a responsible gun owner who decides he's having a bad day and takes it out wherever I happen to be (I avoid shopping at Walmart). But hey, whats 5,000 murders and 15,000 suicides when you have cancer, obesity and car wrecks to worry about?
    That is completely illegally, and can result in jail time for the buyer.
    I know for sure in Nevada, and I believe in every other state as well, even without a background check you are still required to be a resident of the state you are purchasing the gun in. 
    What I am not entirely sure on is how much of a responsibility the seller has in this case, but no matter what it is an illegal transaction since the buyer cannot legally buy guns in Nevada and the California buyer can face serious penalties and lose their right to own a gun. I believe the seller can be held responsible too, but I am not as confident about that. Agreed that a mandatory background would prevent that, and is one reason I said I am for them. If you want to debate technicalities, I wouldn't call it a loophole simply because it isn't legal. But that doesn't really matter in my opinion, call it what you want. 
    I am still very unclear why you essentially make a debate out of everything I have said. My comparison is laughable? It is? Even though that wasn't my comparison, and what I said was when that argument is brought up I respond with just because there are second hand smoking deaths that doesn't mean that we can't try to minimize the gun deaths as well. I really don't think I said anything you would disagree with, which is why it is puzzling to me why every comment of yours for the last 2 days is directed towards me. Is all your hatred for guns just directed at me?

    Mace 1229,
    You have put forth rational and informed insight on this and other topics.
    What I don't get is some of the opposition.  Rather than engage in a back and forth discussion with linear thought and dialogue some choose to snipe back with insults (laughable xcetera)
    He "tries to and hopes to avoid running into responsible gun owners who are having a bad day and snap."
    How should we the responsible gun owners respond to that?
    Yeah, I've come to the conclusion some just don't want to have a rational conversation about guns. I didn't compare gun deaths to smoking, I don't fear a ban, but keeps bringing it up multiple times that I have for some reason.
    I've never said it is too late or too early to talk about gun control. I was on here the day after the vegas shooting talking about it.
    Its amusing at this point how he keeps bringing those up over and over and hasn't answered a single one of my questions.
    i took your post as comparing the two as well, not just halifax. well, not comparing, it seemed more of a deflection. 
    I'm not sure how it could be taken that way. I was asked if my opinion on gun control recently change. Part of my response was that not recently, but maybe 5-10 years ago and with several members of my family in law enforcement guns have been a part of our family life. And I hear that argument often about what kills more than guns.
    i can assume we all agree that more people die from heart disease and other health issues than guns. That's not even debatable, right? My response to those arguments is that could be true, but why does that mean we ignore gun control until that becomes the #1 killer? 
    I don't see that as making a comparison between the two, I just shared the views my family have to give a perspective on my background and how I respond to it, and I imagine many on here would have the same response. That's not me linking the two together, or trying to deflect, just me being open when trying to answer a question abut my history on this topic.
    sorry, just the way it was written, or the way I read it, I thought you were speaking in first person. but it's clear now. 
    T minus 9 days and counting..........
  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 11,979
    RYME said:
    RYME said:
    RYME said:
    mace1229 said:
    Hence the need to have minimum federal regulations. A previous poster linked to evidence that many gun crimes in California are with guns purchased at Nevada gun shows, the "gun show loophole." I posted a link to evidence that 26,000 gun crimes were committed with guns purchased at gun shows in a given year. Ahh, that pesky gun show loophole. People who can't or shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun, get them through gun shows, flea markets or other private sales of guns. It would seem, closing that loophole through passage of federal regulations/law would be a no brainer (I have no idea where the CA shooter obtained his gun, could have been perfectly legal, in which case its just another responsible gun owner who one day decided he didn't want to be responsible anymore). Wayne LaPierre was for it before he was against it.

    Mace's comparison of gun deaths to second hand smoke and McDonald's consumption is laughable. I have a choice in those instances, I try not to expose myself to second hand smoke and I rarely if ever eat McDonald's. There's not much I can do if someone decides to go on a shooting rampage where I'm present, except CC, which I'm not going to do, learn CPR and First Aid, I have, have situational awareness, I try to and hope that I don't run into a responsible gun owner who decides he's having a bad day and takes it out wherever I happen to be (I avoid shopping at Walmart). But hey, whats 5,000 murders and 15,000 suicides when you have cancer, obesity and car wrecks to worry about?
    That is completely illegally, and can result in jail time for the buyer.
    I know for sure in Nevada, and I believe in every other state as well, even without a background check you are still required to be a resident of the state you are purchasing the gun in. 
    What I am not entirely sure on is how much of a responsibility the seller has in this case, but no matter what it is an illegal transaction since the buyer cannot legally buy guns in Nevada and the California buyer can face serious penalties and lose their right to own a gun. I believe the seller can be held responsible too, but I am not as confident about that. Agreed that a mandatory background would prevent that, and is one reason I said I am for them. If you want to debate technicalities, I wouldn't call it a loophole simply because it isn't legal. But that doesn't really matter in my opinion, call it what you want. 
    I am still very unclear why you essentially make a debate out of everything I have said. My comparison is laughable? It is? Even though that wasn't my comparison, and what I said was when that argument is brought up I respond with just because there are second hand smoking deaths that doesn't mean that we can't try to minimize the gun deaths as well. I really don't think I said anything you would disagree with, which is why it is puzzling to me why every comment of yours for the last 2 days is directed towards me. Is all your hatred for guns just directed at me?

    Mace 1229,
    You have put forth rational and informed insight on this and other topics.
    What I don't get is some of the opposition.  Rather than engage in a back and forth discussion with linear thought and dialogue some choose to snipe back with insults (laughable xcetera)
    He "tries to and hopes to avoid running into responsible gun owners who are having a bad day and snap."
    How should we the responsible gun owners respond to that?
    Gee Ryme, how would YOU respond to it?

    Gee  Halifax, my first response to it is the suggestion that you  learn how to have a polite discussions & conversations with people.  Arrogance is not a plus.
     Also I would say that people like myself and Mace 1229 aren't the type of people you need to worry about.

    If you’re armed, white males, maybe I do? Ignorance is bliss.
     
    I ask this respectfully.  What do you mean if I'm armed, white male, maybe you do?
    the vast majority of mass shooters are (obviously) armed white males. 
    T minus 9 days and counting..........
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 16,694
    I'd like an AR-15 and some chicken mcnuggets ...



    Nah, we don't need any regulation ...
  • RYMERYME Wisconsin Posts: 722
    RYME said:
    RYME said:
    RYME said:
    mace1229 said:
    Hence the need to have minimum federal regulations. A previous poster linked to evidence that many gun crimes in California are with guns purchased at Nevada gun shows, the "gun show loophole." I posted a link to evidence that 26,000 gun crimes were committed with guns purchased at gun shows in a given year. Ahh, that pesky gun show loophole. People who can't or shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun, get them through gun shows, flea markets or other private sales of guns. It would seem, closing that loophole through passage of federal regulations/law would be a no brainer (I have no idea where the CA shooter obtained his gun, could have been perfectly legal, in which case its just another responsible gun owner who one day decided he didn't want to be responsible anymore). Wayne LaPierre was for it before he was against it.

    Mace's comparison of gun deaths to second hand smoke and McDonald's consumption is laughable. I have a choice in those instances, I try not to expose myself to second hand smoke and I rarely if ever eat McDonald's. There's not much I can do if someone decides to go on a shooting rampage where I'm present, except CC, which I'm not going to do, learn CPR and First Aid, I have, have situational awareness, I try to and hope that I don't run into a responsible gun owner who decides he's having a bad day and takes it out wherever I happen to be (I avoid shopping at Walmart). But hey, whats 5,000 murders and 15,000 suicides when you have cancer, obesity and car wrecks to worry about?
    That is completely illegally, and can result in jail time for the buyer.
    I know for sure in Nevada, and I believe in every other state as well, even without a background check you are still required to be a resident of the state you are purchasing the gun in. 
    What I am not entirely sure on is how much of a responsibility the seller has in this case, but no matter what it is an illegal transaction since the buyer cannot legally buy guns in Nevada and the California buyer can face serious penalties and lose their right to own a gun. I believe the seller can be held responsible too, but I am not as confident about that. Agreed that a mandatory background would prevent that, and is one reason I said I am for them. If you want to debate technicalities, I wouldn't call it a loophole simply because it isn't legal. But that doesn't really matter in my opinion, call it what you want. 
    I am still very unclear why you essentially make a debate out of everything I have said. My comparison is laughable? It is? Even though that wasn't my comparison, and what I said was when that argument is brought up I respond with just because there are second hand smoking deaths that doesn't mean that we can't try to minimize the gun deaths as well. I really don't think I said anything you would disagree with, which is why it is puzzling to me why every comment of yours for the last 2 days is directed towards me. Is all your hatred for guns just directed at me?

    Mace 1229,
    You have put forth rational and informed insight on this and other topics.
    What I don't get is some of the opposition.  Rather than engage in a back and forth discussion with linear thought and dialogue some choose to snipe back with insults (laughable xcetera)
    He "tries to and hopes to avoid running into responsible gun owners who are having a bad day and snap."
    How should we the responsible gun owners respond to that?
    Gee Ryme, how would YOU respond to it?

    Gee  Halifax, my first response to it is the suggestion that you  learn how to have a polite discussions & conversations with people.  Arrogance is not a plus.
     Also I would say that people like myself and Mace 1229 aren't the type of people you need to worry about.

    If you’re armed, white males, maybe I do? Ignorance is bliss.
     
    I ask this respectfully.  What do you mean if I'm armed, white male, maybe you do?
    the vast majority of mass shooters are (obviously) armed white males. 
    So, I'm a WMA, responsible law-abiding citizen who owns guns.  Are you suggesting that Society needs to be a leery of people like me?  I'm a white male American gun owner.  So you think I am a potential Mass shooter?
    The concern Halifax stated above baffles me.  I'm just trying to understand this.
    His concern/worry is that somebody like myself a responsible mind my own business gun owner is going to have a bad day and go off on a shooting spree, and he doesn't want to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Is that the concern?
  • RYMERYME Wisconsin Posts: 722
    Most of these Mass shooters have a long troubled history and they premeditate this shit for a long long time before they actually do it.

  • HughFreakingDillonHughFreakingDillon WinnipegPosts: 11,979
    RYME said:
    RYME said:
    RYME said:
    RYME said:
    mace1229 said:
    Hence the need to have minimum federal regulations. A previous poster linked to evidence that many gun crimes in California are with guns purchased at Nevada gun shows, the "gun show loophole." I posted a link to evidence that 26,000 gun crimes were committed with guns purchased at gun shows in a given year. Ahh, that pesky gun show loophole. People who can't or shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun, get them through gun shows, flea markets or other private sales of guns. It would seem, closing that loophole through passage of federal regulations/law would be a no brainer (I have no idea where the CA shooter obtained his gun, could have been perfectly legal, in which case its just another responsible gun owner who one day decided he didn't want to be responsible anymore). Wayne LaPierre was for it before he was against it.

    Mace's comparison of gun deaths to second hand smoke and McDonald's consumption is laughable. I have a choice in those instances, I try not to expose myself to second hand smoke and I rarely if ever eat McDonald's. There's not much I can do if someone decides to go on a shooting rampage where I'm present, except CC, which I'm not going to do, learn CPR and First Aid, I have, have situational awareness, I try to and hope that I don't run into a responsible gun owner who decides he's having a bad day and takes it out wherever I happen to be (I avoid shopping at Walmart). But hey, whats 5,000 murders and 15,000 suicides when you have cancer, obesity and car wrecks to worry about?
    That is completely illegally, and can result in jail time for the buyer.
    I know for sure in Nevada, and I believe in every other state as well, even without a background check you are still required to be a resident of the state you are purchasing the gun in. 
    What I am not entirely sure on is how much of a responsibility the seller has in this case, but no matter what it is an illegal transaction since the buyer cannot legally buy guns in Nevada and the California buyer can face serious penalties and lose their right to own a gun. I believe the seller can be held responsible too, but I am not as confident about that. Agreed that a mandatory background would prevent that, and is one reason I said I am for them. If you want to debate technicalities, I wouldn't call it a loophole simply because it isn't legal. But that doesn't really matter in my opinion, call it what you want. 
    I am still very unclear why you essentially make a debate out of everything I have said. My comparison is laughable? It is? Even though that wasn't my comparison, and what I said was when that argument is brought up I respond with just because there are second hand smoking deaths that doesn't mean that we can't try to minimize the gun deaths as well. I really don't think I said anything you would disagree with, which is why it is puzzling to me why every comment of yours for the last 2 days is directed towards me. Is all your hatred for guns just directed at me?

    Mace 1229,
    You have put forth rational and informed insight on this and other topics.
    What I don't get is some of the opposition.  Rather than engage in a back and forth discussion with linear thought and dialogue some choose to snipe back with insults (laughable xcetera)
    He "tries to and hopes to avoid running into responsible gun owners who are having a bad day and snap."
    How should we the responsible gun owners respond to that?
    Gee Ryme, how would YOU respond to it?

    Gee  Halifax, my first response to it is the suggestion that you  learn how to have a polite discussions & conversations with people.  Arrogance is not a plus.
     Also I would say that people like myself and Mace 1229 aren't the type of people you need to worry about.

    If you’re armed, white males, maybe I do? Ignorance is bliss.
     
    I ask this respectfully.  What do you mean if I'm armed, white male, maybe you do?
    the vast majority of mass shooters are (obviously) armed white males. 
    So, I'm a WMA, responsible law-abiding citizen who owns guns.  Are you suggesting that Society needs to be a leery of people like me?  I'm a white male American gun owner.  So you think I am a potential Mass shooter?
    The concern Halifax stated above baffles me.  I'm just trying to understand this.
    His concern/worry is that somebody like myself a responsible mind my own business gun owner is going to have a bad day and go off on a shooting spree, and he doesn't want to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Is that the concern?
    you'd have to ask Halifax. I was merely answering your question. 

    I would imagine though, that you are taking his comment way too personally. But I could be wrong. 
    T minus 9 days and counting..........
  • RYME said:
    RYME said:
    RYME said:
    RYME said:
    mace1229 said:
    Hence the need to have minimum federal regulations. A previous poster linked to evidence that many gun crimes in California are with guns purchased at Nevada gun shows, the "gun show loophole." I posted a link to evidence that 26,000 gun crimes were committed with guns purchased at gun shows in a given year. Ahh, that pesky gun show loophole. People who can't or shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun, get them through gun shows, flea markets or other private sales of guns. It would seem, closing that loophole through passage of federal regulations/law would be a no brainer (I have no idea where the CA shooter obtained his gun, could have been perfectly legal, in which case its just another responsible gun owner who one day decided he didn't want to be responsible anymore). Wayne LaPierre was for it before he was against it.

    Mace's comparison of gun deaths to second hand smoke and McDonald's consumption is laughable. I have a choice in those instances, I try not to expose myself to second hand smoke and I rarely if ever eat McDonald's. There's not much I can do if someone decides to go on a shooting rampage where I'm present, except CC, which I'm not going to do, learn CPR and First Aid, I have, have situational awareness, I try to and hope that I don't run into a responsible gun owner who decides he's having a bad day and takes it out wherever I happen to be (I avoid shopping at Walmart). But hey, whats 5,000 murders and 15,000 suicides when you have cancer, obesity and car wrecks to worry about?
    That is completely illegally, and can result in jail time for the buyer.
    I know for sure in Nevada, and I believe in every other state as well, even without a background check you are still required to be a resident of the state you are purchasing the gun in. 
    What I am not entirely sure on is how much of a responsibility the seller has in this case, but no matter what it is an illegal transaction since the buyer cannot legally buy guns in Nevada and the California buyer can face serious penalties and lose their right to own a gun. I believe the seller can be held responsible too, but I am not as confident about that. Agreed that a mandatory background would prevent that, and is one reason I said I am for them. If you want to debate technicalities, I wouldn't call it a loophole simply because it isn't legal. But that doesn't really matter in my opinion, call it what you want. 
    I am still very unclear why you essentially make a debate out of everything I have said. My comparison is laughable? It is? Even though that wasn't my comparison, and what I said was when that argument is brought up I respond with just because there are second hand smoking deaths that doesn't mean that we can't try to minimize the gun deaths as well. I really don't think I said anything you would disagree with, which is why it is puzzling to me why every comment of yours for the last 2 days is directed towards me. Is all your hatred for guns just directed at me?

    Mace 1229,
    You have put forth rational and informed insight on this and other topics.
    What I don't get is some of the opposition.  Rather than engage in a back and forth discussion with linear thought and dialogue some choose to snipe back with insults (laughable xcetera)
    He "tries to and hopes to avoid running into responsible gun owners who are having a bad day and snap."
    How should we the responsible gun owners respond to that?
    Gee Ryme, how would YOU respond to it?

    Gee  Halifax, my first response to it is the suggestion that you  learn how to have a polite discussions & conversations with people.  Arrogance is not a plus.
     Also I would say that people like myself and Mace 1229 aren't the type of people you need to worry about.

    If you’re armed, white males, maybe I do? Ignorance is bliss.
     
    I ask this respectfully.  What do you mean if I'm armed, white male, maybe you do?
    the vast majority of mass shooters are (obviously) armed white males. 
    So, I'm a WMA, responsible law-abiding citizen who owns guns.  Are you suggesting that Society needs to be a leery of people like me?  I'm a white male American gun owner.  So you think I am a potential Mass shooter?
    The concern Halifax stated above baffles me.  I'm just trying to understand this.
    His concern/worry is that somebody like myself a responsible mind my own business gun owner is going to have a bad day and go off on a shooting spree, and he doesn't want to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Is that the concern?
    Statistically speaking, yes, respectfully.

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race/

    A more developed, respectful answer forthcoming. Busy at work.
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • BentleyspopBentleyspop Craft Beer Brewery, ColoradoPosts: 4,012
    tbergs said:
    Well, I've yet to see the weapon of choice named in the latest shooting, but based on the "high capacity magazines" found at the scene and the description of a semi auto rifle, I bet it's some sort of AR-15.

    C'mon people, either ban the damn thing or get rid of the high capacity mags! A fucking child could tell you what would help alleviate this issue. No citizen should be allowed to own such a type of weapon.
    Unfortunately it's  too late to "ban" them as there 20 million plus in circulation. Banning the manufacture of them would be good.
  • benjsbenjs Toronto, ONPosts: 6,925
    RYME said:
    RYME said:
    RYME said:
    RYME said:
    mace1229 said:
    Hence the need to have minimum federal regulations. A previous poster linked to evidence that many gun crimes in California are with guns purchased at Nevada gun shows, the "gun show loophole." I posted a link to evidence that 26,000 gun crimes were committed with guns purchased at gun shows in a given year. Ahh, that pesky gun show loophole. People who can't or shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun, get them through gun shows, flea markets or other private sales of guns. It would seem, closing that loophole through passage of federal regulations/law would be a no brainer (I have no idea where the CA shooter obtained his gun, could have been perfectly legal, in which case its just another responsible gun owner who one day decided he didn't want to be responsible anymore). Wayne LaPierre was for it before he was against it.

    Mace's comparison of gun deaths to second hand smoke and McDonald's consumption is laughable. I have a choice in those instances, I try not to expose myself to second hand smoke and I rarely if ever eat McDonald's. There's not much I can do if someone decides to go on a shooting rampage where I'm present, except CC, which I'm not going to do, learn CPR and First Aid, I have, have situational awareness, I try to and hope that I don't run into a responsible gun owner who decides he's having a bad day and takes it out wherever I happen to be (I avoid shopping at Walmart). But hey, whats 5,000 murders and 15,000 suicides when you have cancer, obesity and car wrecks to worry about?
    That is completely illegally, and can result in jail time for the buyer.
    I know for sure in Nevada, and I believe in every other state as well, even without a background check you are still required to be a resident of the state you are purchasing the gun in. 
    What I am not entirely sure on is how much of a responsibility the seller has in this case, but no matter what it is an illegal transaction since the buyer cannot legally buy guns in Nevada and the California buyer can face serious penalties and lose their right to own a gun. I believe the seller can be held responsible too, but I am not as confident about that. Agreed that a mandatory background would prevent that, and is one reason I said I am for them. If you want to debate technicalities, I wouldn't call it a loophole simply because it isn't legal. But that doesn't really matter in my opinion, call it what you want. 
    I am still very unclear why you essentially make a debate out of everything I have said. My comparison is laughable? It is? Even though that wasn't my comparison, and what I said was when that argument is brought up I respond with just because there are second hand smoking deaths that doesn't mean that we can't try to minimize the gun deaths as well. I really don't think I said anything you would disagree with, which is why it is puzzling to me why every comment of yours for the last 2 days is directed towards me. Is all your hatred for guns just directed at me?

    Mace 1229,
    You have put forth rational and informed insight on this and other topics.
    What I don't get is some of the opposition.  Rather than engage in a back and forth discussion with linear thought and dialogue some choose to snipe back with insults (laughable xcetera)
    He "tries to and hopes to avoid running into responsible gun owners who are having a bad day and snap."
    How should we the responsible gun owners respond to that?
    Gee Ryme, how would YOU respond to it?

    Gee  Halifax, my first response to it is the suggestion that you  learn how to have a polite discussions & conversations with people.  Arrogance is not a plus.
     Also I would say that people like myself and Mace 1229 aren't the type of people you need to worry about.

    If you’re armed, white males, maybe I do? Ignorance is bliss.
     
    I ask this respectfully.  What do you mean if I'm armed, white male, maybe you do?
    the vast majority of mass shooters are (obviously) armed white males. 
    So, I'm a WMA, responsible law-abiding citizen who owns guns.  Are you suggesting that Society needs to be a leery of people like me?  I'm a white male American gun owner.  So you think I am a potential Mass shooter?
    The concern Halifax stated above baffles me.  I'm just trying to understand this.
    His concern/worry is that somebody like myself a responsible mind my own business gun owner is going to have a bad day and go off on a shooting spree, and he doesn't want to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Is that the concern?
    Ultimately, it's not about who you are specifically. What it boils down to is that if a country has finite law enforcement resources and cannot afford to profile each and every individual, you have to find the most effective and efficient way to enforce the law. If statistics show elevated risk with a certain sector of a population, it would be foolish to not allocate law enforcement resources proportionally.

    On that note, if it turns out that 27-year-old, male Jewish Canadians are higher risk from a security perspective than the average population, I would be frustrated, but would begrudgingly accept the higher scrutiny that I would receive when going into an airport or public event. Perhaps I might then work with my community to promote better behaviours so that law enforcement could reciprocate accordingly. 

    I feel that it's important to accept a statistically-driven reality, when those producing harm outnumber those preventing it. 
    '05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2

    EV
    Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 1,654
    RYME said:
    RYME said:
    RYME said:
    RYME said:
    mace1229 said:
    Hence the need to have minimum federal regulations. A previous poster linked to evidence that many gun crimes in California are with guns purchased at Nevada gun shows, the "gun show loophole." I posted a link to evidence that 26,000 gun crimes were committed with guns purchased at gun shows in a given year. Ahh, that pesky gun show loophole. People who can't or shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun, get them through gun shows, flea markets or other private sales of guns. It would seem, closing that loophole through passage of federal regulations/law would be a no brainer (I have no idea where the CA shooter obtained his gun, could have been perfectly legal, in which case its just another responsible gun owner who one day decided he didn't want to be responsible anymore). Wayne LaPierre was for it before he was against it.

    Mace's comparison of gun deaths to second hand smoke and McDonald's consumption is laughable. I have a choice in those instances, I try not to expose myself to second hand smoke and I rarely if ever eat McDonald's. There's not much I can do if someone decides to go on a shooting rampage where I'm present, except CC, which I'm not going to do, learn CPR and First Aid, I have, have situational awareness, I try to and hope that I don't run into a responsible gun owner who decides he's having a bad day and takes it out wherever I happen to be (I avoid shopping at Walmart). But hey, whats 5,000 murders and 15,000 suicides when you have cancer, obesity and car wrecks to worry about?
    That is completely illegally, and can result in jail time for the buyer.
    I know for sure in Nevada, and I believe in every other state as well, even without a background check you are still required to be a resident of the state you are purchasing the gun in. 
    What I am not entirely sure on is how much of a responsibility the seller has in this case, but no matter what it is an illegal transaction since the buyer cannot legally buy guns in Nevada and the California buyer can face serious penalties and lose their right to own a gun. I believe the seller can be held responsible too, but I am not as confident about that. Agreed that a mandatory background would prevent that, and is one reason I said I am for them. If you want to debate technicalities, I wouldn't call it a loophole simply because it isn't legal. But that doesn't really matter in my opinion, call it what you want. 
    I am still very unclear why you essentially make a debate out of everything I have said. My comparison is laughable? It is? Even though that wasn't my comparison, and what I said was when that argument is brought up I respond with just because there are second hand smoking deaths that doesn't mean that we can't try to minimize the gun deaths as well. I really don't think I said anything you would disagree with, which is why it is puzzling to me why every comment of yours for the last 2 days is directed towards me. Is all your hatred for guns just directed at me?

    Mace 1229,
    You have put forth rational and informed insight on this and other topics.
    What I don't get is some of the opposition.  Rather than engage in a back and forth discussion with linear thought and dialogue some choose to snipe back with insults (laughable xcetera)
    He "tries to and hopes to avoid running into responsible gun owners who are having a bad day and snap."
    How should we the responsible gun owners respond to that?
    Gee Ryme, how would YOU respond to it?

    Gee  Halifax, my first response to it is the suggestion that you  learn how to have a polite discussions & conversations with people.  Arrogance is not a plus.
     Also I would say that people like myself and Mace 1229 aren't the type of people you need to worry about.

    If you’re armed, white males, maybe I do? Ignorance is bliss.
     
    I ask this respectfully.  What do you mean if I'm armed, white male, maybe you do?
    the vast majority of mass shooters are (obviously) armed white males. 
    So, I'm a WMA, responsible law-abiding citizen who owns guns.  Are you suggesting that Society needs to be a leery of people like me?  I'm a white male American gun owner.  So you think I am a potential Mass shooter?
    The concern Halifax stated above baffles me.  I'm just trying to understand this.
    His concern/worry is that somebody like myself a responsible mind my own business gun owner is going to have a bad day and go off on a shooting spree, and he doesn't want to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Is that the concern?
    Statistically speaking, yes, respectfully.

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race/

    A more developed, respectful answer forthcoming. Busy at work.
    That is not concerning to me, considering whites make up as much of 73% of the population according to wikipedia, but commit only 51% of mass shootings, that is below par.
    The only thing that bothers me about that statement is I can't apply that same logic to terrorists attacks without being accused of being racist. But apply it to whites, and even though the data suggests whites actually commit fewer mass shootings when compared to population size, its completely okay. And I am not referencing just you, I see quite often in the media and articles. 

    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/24/majority-of-fatal-attacks-on-us-soil-carried-out-b/

    I'm not saying we should fear Muslims or someone from the Middle East, just pointing out the double standard in the race/religion card.
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 6,314
    mace1229 said:
    RYME said:
    RYME said:
    RYME said:
    RYME said:
    mace1229 said:
    Hence the need to have minimum federal regulations. A previous poster linked to evidence that many gun crimes in California are with guns purchased at Nevada gun shows, the "gun show loophole." I posted a link to evidence that 26,000 gun crimes were committed with guns purchased at gun shows in a given year. Ahh, that pesky gun show loophole. People who can't or shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun, get them through gun shows, flea markets or other private sales of guns. It would seem, closing that loophole through passage of federal regulations/law would be a no brainer (I have no idea where the CA shooter obtained his gun, could have been perfectly legal, in which case its just another responsible gun owner who one day decided he didn't want to be responsible anymore). Wayne LaPierre was for it before he was against it.

    Mace's comparison of gun deaths to second hand smoke and McDonald's consumption is laughable. I have a choice in those instances, I try not to expose myself to second hand smoke and I rarely if ever eat McDonald's. There's not much I can do if someone decides to go on a shooting rampage where I'm present, except CC, which I'm not going to do, learn CPR and First Aid, I have, have situational awareness, I try to and hope that I don't run into a responsible gun owner who decides he's having a bad day and takes it out wherever I happen to be (I avoid shopping at Walmart). But hey, whats 5,000 murders and 15,000 suicides when you have cancer, obesity and car wrecks to worry about?
    That is completely illegally, and can result in jail time for the buyer.
    I know for sure in Nevada, and I believe in every other state as well, even without a background check you are still required to be a resident of the state you are purchasing the gun in. 
    What I am not entirely sure on is how much of a responsibility the seller has in this case, but no matter what it is an illegal transaction since the buyer cannot legally buy guns in Nevada and the California buyer can face serious penalties and lose their right to own a gun. I believe the seller can be held responsible too, but I am not as confident about that. Agreed that a mandatory background would prevent that, and is one reason I said I am for them. If you want to debate technicalities, I wouldn't call it a loophole simply because it isn't legal. But that doesn't really matter in my opinion, call it what you want. 
    I am still very unclear why you essentially make a debate out of everything I have said. My comparison is laughable? It is? Even though that wasn't my comparison, and what I said was when that argument is brought up I respond with just because there are second hand smoking deaths that doesn't mean that we can't try to minimize the gun deaths as well. I really don't think I said anything you would disagree with, which is why it is puzzling to me why every comment of yours for the last 2 days is directed towards me. Is all your hatred for guns just directed at me?

    Mace 1229,
    You have put forth rational and informed insight on this and other topics.
    What I don't get is some of the opposition.  Rather than engage in a back and forth discussion with linear thought and dialogue some choose to snipe back with insults (laughable xcetera)
    He "tries to and hopes to avoid running into responsible gun owners who are having a bad day and snap."
    How should we the responsible gun owners respond to that?
    Gee Ryme, how would YOU respond to it?

    Gee  Halifax, my first response to it is the suggestion that you  learn how to have a polite discussions & conversations with people.  Arrogance is not a plus.
     Also I would say that people like myself and Mace 1229 aren't the type of people you need to worry about.

    If you’re armed, white males, maybe I do? Ignorance is bliss.
     
    I ask this respectfully.  What do you mean if I'm armed, white male, maybe you do?
    the vast majority of mass shooters are (obviously) armed white males. 
    So, I'm a WMA, responsible law-abiding citizen who owns guns.  Are you suggesting that Society needs to be a leery of people like me?  I'm a white male American gun owner.  So you think I am a potential Mass shooter?
    The concern Halifax stated above baffles me.  I'm just trying to understand this.
    His concern/worry is that somebody like myself a responsible mind my own business gun owner is going to have a bad day and go off on a shooting spree, and he doesn't want to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Is that the concern?
    Statistically speaking, yes, respectfully.

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race/

    A more developed, respectful answer forthcoming. Busy at work.
    That is not concerning to me, considering whites make up as much of 73% of the population according to wikipedia, but commit only 51% of mass shootings, that is below par.
    The only thing that bothers me about that statement is I can't apply that same logic to terrorists attacks without being accused of being racist. But apply it to whites, and even though the data suggests whites actually commit fewer mass shootings when compared to population size, its completely okay. And I am not referencing just you, I see quite often in the media and articles. 

    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/24/majority-of-fatal-attacks-on-us-soil-carried-out-b/

    I'm not saying we should fear Muslims or someone from the Middle East, just pointing out the double standard in the race/religion card.
    White males do not make up 73% of the US population so your analogy is false. White males make up about 31% of the population, so yeah, definitely over represented as mass shooters. Women commit very few mass shootings  
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 6,314
    Given that it's the male part that's been emphasized many times recently, it's odd that that was ignored. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • mace1229mace1229 Posts: 1,654
    edited November 15
    mace1229 said:
    RYME said:
    RYME said:
    RYME said:
    RYME said:
    mace1229 said:
    Hence the need to have minimum federal regulations. A previous poster linked to evidence that many gun crimes in California are with guns purchased at Nevada gun shows, the "gun show loophole." I posted a link to evidence that 26,000 gun crimes were committed with guns purchased at gun shows in a given year. Ahh, that pesky gun show loophole. People who can't or shouldn't be allowed to purchase a gun, get them through gun shows, flea markets or other private sales of guns. It would seem, closing that loophole through passage of federal regulations/law would be a no brainer (I have no idea where the CA shooter obtained his gun, could have been perfectly legal, in which case its just another responsible gun owner who one day decided he didn't want to be responsible anymore). Wayne LaPierre was for it before he was against it.

    Mace's comparison of gun deaths to second hand smoke and McDonald's consumption is laughable. I have a choice in those instances, I try not to expose myself to second hand smoke and I rarely if ever eat McDonald's. There's not much I can do if someone decides to go on a shooting rampage where I'm present, except CC, which I'm not going to do, learn CPR and First Aid, I have, have situational awareness, I try to and hope that I don't run into a responsible gun owner who decides he's having a bad day and takes it out wherever I happen to be (I avoid shopping at Walmart). But hey, whats 5,000 murders and 15,000 suicides when you have cancer, obesity and car wrecks to worry about?
    That is completely illegally, and can result in jail time for the buyer.
    I know for sure in Nevada, and I believe in every other state as well, even without a background check you are still required to be a resident of the state you are purchasing the gun in. 
    What I am not entirely sure on is how much of a responsibility the seller has in this case, but no matter what it is an illegal transaction since the buyer cannot legally buy guns in Nevada and the California buyer can face serious penalties and lose their right to own a gun. I believe the seller can be held responsible too, but I am not as confident about that. Agreed that a mandatory background would prevent that, and is one reason I said I am for them. If you want to debate technicalities, I wouldn't call it a loophole simply because it isn't legal. But that doesn't really matter in my opinion, call it what you want. 
    I am still very unclear why you essentially make a debate out of everything I have said. My comparison is laughable? It is? Even though that wasn't my comparison, and what I said was when that argument is brought up I respond with just because there are second hand smoking deaths that doesn't mean that we can't try to minimize the gun deaths as well. I really don't think I said anything you would disagree with, which is why it is puzzling to me why every comment of yours for the last 2 days is directed towards me. Is all your hatred for guns just directed at me?

    Mace 1229,
    You have put forth rational and informed insight on this and other topics.
    What I don't get is some of the opposition.  Rather than engage in a back and forth discussion with linear thought and dialogue some choose to snipe back with insults (laughable xcetera)
    He "tries to and hopes to avoid running into responsible gun owners who are having a bad day and snap."
    How should we the responsible gun owners respond to that?
    Gee Ryme, how would YOU respond to it?

    Gee  Halifax, my first response to it is the suggestion that you  learn how to have a polite discussions & conversations with people.  Arrogance is not a plus.
     Also I would say that people like myself and Mace 1229 aren't the type of people you need to worry about.

    If you’re armed, white males, maybe I do? Ignorance is bliss.
     
    I ask this respectfully.  What do you mean if I'm armed, white male, maybe you do?
    the vast majority of mass shooters are (obviously) armed white males. 
    So, I'm a WMA, responsible law-abiding citizen who owns guns.  Are you suggesting that Society needs to be a leery of people like me?  I'm a white male American gun owner.  So you think I am a potential Mass shooter?
    The concern Halifax stated above baffles me.  I'm just trying to understand this.
    His concern/worry is that somebody like myself a responsible mind my own business gun owner is going to have a bad day and go off on a shooting spree, and he doesn't want to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Is that the concern?
    Statistically speaking, yes, respectfully.

    https://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race/

    A more developed, respectful answer forthcoming. Busy at work.
    That is not concerning to me, considering whites make up as much of 73% of the population according to wikipedia, but commit only 51% of mass shootings, that is below par.
    The only thing that bothers me about that statement is I can't apply that same logic to terrorists attacks without being accused of being racist. But apply it to whites, and even though the data suggests whites actually commit fewer mass shootings when compared to population size, its completely okay. And I am not referencing just you, I see quite often in the media and articles. 

    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/24/majority-of-fatal-attacks-on-us-soil-carried-out-b/

    I'm not saying we should fear Muslims or someone from the Middle East, just pointing out the double standard in the race/religion card.
    White males do not make up 73% of the US population so your analogy is false. White males make up about 31% of the population, so yeah, definitely over represented as mass shooters. Women commit very few mass shootings  
    Agree males are far more guilty, about 98% of mass shooters are male. So you can essentially ignore the female population in this discussion. It still doesn't change the fact that whites are not over-represented in this statistic. Males are for sure, but not whites.
    My mistake was misreading that graph, it was 51 incidents, not 51%, so that translates into 57%.
    So according to the data, 57% of mass shootings are white males, but roughly 73% of males are white. Look at other ethnic groups, 13% of the population is black, but black males make up about 17% of mass shooters. How is this a white problem?
    I got population data from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States
    Even if you have something slightly different, it won't change the end results.
    Post edited by mace1229 on
  • Gern BlanstenGern Blansten Your Mom'sPosts: 6,528
    edited November 15
    unsung said:
    RYME said:
    CM189191 said:
    RYME said:
    CM189191 said:
    unsung said:
    unsung said:

    It used to be part of school curriculum.   Bring gun safety classes back, totally agree.
    So who best to regulate that other than the state?  Issue state licenses for gun owners that reflect basic competency.  

    If run through the DMV you wouldn't have much more admin cost since the brick and mortar already exists.
    Some States already do, Illinois being one, Chicago is just getting worse.  Guns can’t be blamed, that is just a cop-out.  Nothing will change until people value life.  How do we get that done?

    Yes, that's obviously the most reasonable explanation.  Other countries just value life more than the US does. 

    Fun fact: The Second Amendment was ratified to preserve slavery

    There is literally a direct line from the 2nd Amendment to devaluation of human life.
    https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/history/people/indian-killer-andrew-jackson-deserves-top-spot-on-list-of-worst-us-presidents/
    Read about the original founding days of the Democrat party.  Above
    That is wrong sir the second amendment was not to ratify slavery, rather it was a put in place to allow the citizenry to be able to fight back against a tyrannical government.  Please read what the second amendment was actually for.
    https://www.livescience.com/26485-second-amendment.html

    Neither of the links you provide appear to be relevant to your point.

    Also, your point is wrong. 
    I can multitask.
    The second amendment was to give the citizenry the right to keep and bear arms, so that they could fight back against a tyrannical government if need be.  The Second Amendment had nothing to do with preserving slavery. That fun fact listed above is simply wrong and was made up.
    I mentioned Andrew Jackson simply because he was the founder of the Democrat Party, a big-time slave owner and a big-time Indian killer.
    He should never have been put on the $20 bill.  Just ask any Native American what they think of him, and any African Americans who know the true history about slavery, who was for it and who was against it at the time, and who implemented it.
    The "tyrannical government" argument is old and ridiculous.

    Back then the TG would come at you with similar weapons.  Now the TG has tanks...tactical nukes...drones, etc.

    Give that argument up.  Your pussy ass AR-15 isn't going to help you if the TG comes at you.
    How is that working in Afghanistan?  How did it work in Vietnam?  Stupid to even bring up nukes, like the govt would use one at home.
    you are obviously completely ignorant about tactical nukes (like embarrassingly ignorant...you called me stupid without even checking to see what a tactical nuke is?)
    Post edited by Gern Blansten on
    Former BernieBro, turned Hillary rotten Clinton #1 Fanboy

    1998: Noblesville
    2003: Noblesville
    2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
    2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville
    2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
    2013: London ON, Chicago
    2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1
  • Gern BlanstenGern Blansten Your Mom'sPosts: 6,528
    edited November 15
    https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2501

    In the wake of another massacre, American voters today support 95 - 4 percent, including 94 - 5 percent among voters in households where there is a gun, universal background checks for gun purchases, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today. 

    This is the highest level of support for universal background checks since the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University Poll first asked this question in February 2013, in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre. 

    American voters support 65 - 31 percent a nationwide ban on the sale of assault weapons, also a new high. Voters in gun households support a ban 51 - 43 percent. 

    Voters support 60 - 36 percent stricter gun laws and a number of specific gun measures:
    • 91 - 7 percent for a ban on the sale of guns to people convicted of a violent crime;
    • 62 - 34 percent for stricter regulation of ammunition sales;
    • 74 - 24 percent for a ban on gun modifications that can make a gun work more like a fully automatic weapon.
    Post edited by Gern Blansten on
    Former BernieBro, turned Hillary rotten Clinton #1 Fanboy

    1998: Noblesville
    2003: Noblesville
    2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
    2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville
    2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
    2013: London ON, Chicago
    2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1
Sign In or Register to comment.