America's Gun Violence

unsung

Bentleyspop said:

unsung said:

Ooooohhhh.

"Those" people.

Get a life.

Thanks for yet another thoughtful, open minded, and intelligent contribution to the discourse

namaste

How odd, I was thinking the exact same thing to your first reply.

unsung

Gern Blansten said:

CM189191 said:

unsung said:

CM189191 said:

unsung said: 

CM189191 said:

unsung said:p

tbergs said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Bentleyspop said:

Aurora: AR-15
Orlando: AR-15
Las Vegas: AR-15
Sandy Hook: AR-15
Umpqua CC: AR-15
San Bernardino: AR-15
Sutherland Springs: AR-15

Nothing can be done.

Well, one state made it illegal to own a bump stock with your pretty AR killing device.

Is there anybody on here opposed to the ban of owning AR-15 style assault rifles outside of LE and military?

Yes.

You can't even get the terminology correct.

Besides I have been hearing non-stop for a year how "literally Hitler" was elected President, and now those people want "literally Hitler" to be the one in control of all firearms.

Why do you want to give "literally Hitler" oh and the white supremacist and racist and apparently woman abusing and Russian colluder so much control?

every gun
every owner
every transfer
documented

how's that for terminology

Already is in my State.

So how does that stop a bad person from doing bad things?

it's not about stopping bad people from doing bad things
it's about restricting the opportunities for bad people to do bad things so easily

how many times does it have to be explained to you gun-fetishists?  more guns = more gun deaths
this is not a cultural issue of 'the usa has too many bad people", it's an issue of "the usa has too many guns and gun-nuts"

less guns, less gun deaths
it really is that fucking simple, and has been proven the world over.  How is this not sinking in?

I'd just like to know how you propose doing this?

"But nobody is calling for a gun ban!"

I am calling for gun ownership to be restricted.  There are already restrictions on guns and gun ownership, just not enough.  That would include banning certain types of guns.  

And how many people would this even effect?  The majority of the population doesn't own a gun.  The majority of guns owners either own pistols or weapons for hunting (single shot rifles, shotguns, etc.).

The segment of gun owners that restrictions would even effect is very small.  Why do those few insane people control the country?

I'm pretty sure that the majority of NRA members even support restrictions.

The most popular rifle sold in the US by model is the AR15.  It is not just a few people.

Gern Blansten

unsung said:

Gern Blansten said:

CM189191 said:

unsung said:

CM189191 said:

unsung said: 

CM189191 said:

unsung said:p

tbergs said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Bentleyspop said:

Aurora: AR-15
Orlando: AR-15
Las Vegas: AR-15
Sandy Hook: AR-15
Umpqua CC: AR-15
San Bernardino: AR-15
Sutherland Springs: AR-15

Nothing can be done.

Well, one state made it illegal to own a bump stock with your pretty AR killing device.

Is there anybody on here opposed to the ban of owning AR-15 style assault rifles outside of LE and military?

Yes.

You can't even get the terminology correct.

Besides I have been hearing non-stop for a year how "literally Hitler" was elected President, and now those people want "literally Hitler" to be the one in control of all firearms.

Why do you want to give "literally Hitler" oh and the white supremacist and racist and apparently woman abusing and Russian colluder so much control?

every gun
every owner
every transfer
documented

how's that for terminology

Already is in my State.

So how does that stop a bad person from doing bad things?

it's not about stopping bad people from doing bad things
it's about restricting the opportunities for bad people to do bad things so easily

how many times does it have to be explained to you gun-fetishists?  more guns = more gun deaths
this is not a cultural issue of 'the usa has too many bad people", it's an issue of "the usa has too many guns and gun-nuts"

less guns, less gun deaths
it really is that fucking simple, and has been proven the world over.  How is this not sinking in?

I'd just like to know how you propose doing this?

"But nobody is calling for a gun ban!"

I am calling for gun ownership to be restricted.  There are already restrictions on guns and gun ownership, just not enough.  That would include banning certain types of guns.  

And how many people would this even effect?  The majority of the population doesn't own a gun.  The majority of guns owners either own pistols or weapons for hunting (single shot rifles, shotguns, etc.).

The segment of gun owners that restrictions would even effect is very small.  Why do those few insane people control the country?

I'm pretty sure that the majority of NRA members even support restrictions.

The most popular rifle sold in the US by model is the AR15.  It is not just a few people.

Temporary....most likely due to the morons that said Obama was going to take their guns away.

Plus:  I'm curious as to how many people bought one and have either never shot it or used it once.  It's a fad pushed by the gun lobby because that's what they do.  

unsung

josevolution said:

unsung said:

Ooooohhhh.

"Those" people.

Get a life.

Asking serious question do you think anything should be done or just keep it the same way as far as gun laws are concerned in other words lets just keep status quo and go around around with these events , there is another one on the way surely you must agree no ?

How do you make people care about the lives of others?

What changed?  

No, I don't support restrictions on gun ownership, clearly bad people still inflict harm.  A guy just rented a truck a week ago.

unsung

mace1229 said:

tbergs said:

unsung said:

mace1229 said:

unsung said:

Gern Blansten said:

unsung said:

tbergs said:

unsung said:

tbergs said:

unsung said:

tbergs said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Bentleyspop said:

Aurora: AR-15
Orlando: AR-15
Las Vegas: AR-15
Sandy Hook: AR-15
Umpqua CC: AR-15
San Bernardino: AR-15
Sutherland Springs: AR-15

Nothing can be done.

Well, one state made it illegal to own a bump stock with your pretty AR killing device.

Is there anybody on here opposed to the ban of owning AR-15 style assault rifles outside of LE and military?

Yes.

You can't even get the terminology correct.

Besides I have been hearing non-stop for a year how "literally Hitler" was elected President, and now those people want "literally Hitler" to be the one in control of all firearms.

Why do you want to give "literally Hitler" oh and the white supremacist and racist and apparently woman abusing and Russian colluder so much control?

Ok. My apologies. I haven't fired an AR or its like in about 10 years. What is the correct terminology you would like me to use? You have lots of criticism, but no answers or suggestions. Only Mace seems to be able to provide some sort of reasonable discussion points.

Have you ever shot one?

If not, I will take you out to a range and introduce you to one.  I can then go over terminology and show you how it operates, including breaking it down and re-assembling it.

Yeah, did you read my answer? It's been about 9 years. I shot it several thousand times and was qualified with it before that. A crack shot with it. I could break it down and put it back together no problems. That's what I did.

Again, do you have any other suggestions. A civilian has no need to own an AR or other types of semi-auto assault rifles. Fear is the only reason no one is willing to give up these types of guns. Don't worry, we'll all die of lack of water and tillable land before the government comes for your guns. You will probably need your gun to protect your bunker of supplies from the raving masses of starving and thirsty.

Reminds me of this beautiful song;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fj-10lIrboM

Clearly yesterday proved that we need them, in order to stop bad people from harming others.

Thankfully it isn't the Bill of Needs.  Thankfully I don't need someone telling me what I do or don't.

You asked me what my terminology was, that lead me to believe your experience was not vast.  My terminology is what it actually is, not what the media says it is.

pretty sure that guy didn't have an assault weapon

More than likely not as there really is no such thing.  

He probably had his personal defense firearm or his sporting rifle.  I highly doubt he had a military M16.

Just wondering, what are you considering an assault rifle? A gun used by the military?
The government has defined assault rifles by a few select features, many of which are available on civilian versions.

You lost me at "the government".

Features that don't make a weapon any more likely to be used in a crime.

Oh no, those evil pistol grips!  LOL.

Is there a sovereign citizens or similar handbook where we can learn all your acceptable definitions.

You do realize a pistol grip is intended to make the weapon easier to handle, which much like semi-auto features, makes it a much more efficient killing machine for those who are highly skilled in it's use. Unlike a handgun, a rifle bullet is going to travel a lot farther with more efficiency than when I shoot a handgun from a non conforming position. I can shoot a hand gun from the hip and be very effective at 30 feet so imagine if I practice shooting my semi auto from a lower position if I was say, retreating or on the move. That would keep people on their heels. Sure, you won't be very accurate if you aren't aiming, but the fact that you can at least semi-auto fire rounds from a non-sighted position isn't anything I would want to be on the other end of. You seem to think that all of these "features" have no negative impact. To the average gun owner, they probably don't mean shit because they are never going to use it that way, but to the next mass shooter, they are looking for quick and efficient killing "features".

I don't think any of the mass shooters made use of a pistol grip. They are really only good when you don't even care what direction your bullets are going, you have zero control over your weapon when using one. Even the Vegas shooter who had a target of over 20,000 knew not to use it.
But my point wasn't to argue pistol grips. Pistol grips wouldn't even be a point of discussion if magazines were really fixed and limited. If someone wants to own a military looking weapon then I think they should, just as long as it doesn't function like one. Limit the magazine and let them have the pistol grip.

Are you thinking of a bump stock?

I agree that they are stupid, but I don't want them banned.

Gern Blansten

unsung said:

josevolution said:

unsung said:

Ooooohhhh.

"Those" people.

Get a life.

Asking serious question do you think anything should be done or just keep it the same way as far as gun laws are concerned in other words lets just keep status quo and go around around with these events , there is another one on the way surely you must agree no ?

How do you make people care about the lives of others?

What changed?  

No, I don't support restrictions on gun ownership, clearly bad people still inflict harm.  A guy just rented a truck a week ago.

yeah and now they will likely build barriers on that sidewalk to prevent someone from getting on that path again.

See how that works?

unsung

CM189191 said:

unsung said:

CM189191 said:

unsung said: 

CM189191 said:

unsung said:p

tbergs said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Bentleyspop said:

Aurora: AR-15
Orlando: AR-15
Las Vegas: AR-15
Sandy Hook: AR-15
Umpqua CC: AR-15
San Bernardino: AR-15
Sutherland Springs: AR-15

Nothing can be done.

Well, one state made it illegal to own a bump stock with your pretty AR killing device.

Is there anybody on here opposed to the ban of owning AR-15 style assault rifles outside of LE and military?

Yes.

You can't even get the terminology correct.

Besides I have been hearing non-stop for a year how "literally Hitler" was elected President, and now those people want "literally Hitler" to be the one in control of all firearms.

Why do you want to give "literally Hitler" oh and the white supremacist and racist and apparently woman abusing and Russian colluder so much control?

every gun
every owner
every transfer
documented

how's that for terminology

Already is in my State.

So how does that stop a bad person from doing bad things?

it's not about stopping bad people from doing bad things
it's about restricting the opportunities for bad people to do bad things so easily

how many times does it have to be explained to you gun-fetishists?  more guns = more gun deaths
this is not a cultural issue of 'the usa has too many bad people", it's an issue of "the usa has too many guns and gun-nuts"

less guns, less gun deaths
it really is that fucking simple, and has been proven the world over.  How is this not sinking in?

I'd just like to know how you propose doing this?

"But nobody is calling for a gun ban!"

edit: the same way they do it in every other modern industrialized nation that seems to make it through the week without a mass shooting

you act like this is so difficult

And what way is that?

I don't act.

RiotZact

unsung said:

josevolution said:

unsung said:

Ooooohhhh.

"Those" people.

Get a life.

Asking serious question do you think anything should be done or just keep it the same way as far as gun laws are concerned in other words lets just keep status quo and go around around with these events , there is another one on the way surely you must agree no ?

How do you make people care about the lives of others?

What changed?  

No, I don't support restrictions on gun ownership, clearly bad people still inflict harm.  A guy just rented a truck a week ago.

Thanks for proving the opposite point you were trying to. 8 people dead in the most populated city in the country vs. 26 dead in a tiny rural town. 

unsung

Thanks for proving?  What are you 12?

As if a number matters in your kill count?

PJ_Soul

Um, numbers do matter in a kill count. The fewer people dead the better. Obviously.

unsung

Thankfully a good guy with a gun stopped this massacre then.

mace1229

unsung said:

mace1229 said:

tbergs said:

unsung said:

mace1229 said:

unsung said:

Gern Blansten said:

unsung said:

tbergs said:

unsung said:

tbergs said:

unsung said:

tbergs said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Bentleyspop said:

Aurora: AR-15
Orlando: AR-15
Las Vegas: AR-15
Sandy Hook: AR-15
Umpqua CC: AR-15
San Bernardino: AR-15
Sutherland Springs: AR-15

Nothing can be done.

Well, one state made it illegal to own a bump stock with your pretty AR killing device.

Is there anybody on here opposed to the ban of owning AR-15 style assault rifles outside of LE and military?

Yes.

You can't even get the terminology correct.

Besides I have been hearing non-stop for a year how "literally Hitler" was elected President, and now those people want "literally Hitler" to be the one in control of all firearms.

Why do you want to give "literally Hitler" oh and the white supremacist and racist and apparently woman abusing and Russian colluder so much control?

Ok. My apologies. I haven't fired an AR or its like in about 10 years. What is the correct terminology you would like me to use? You have lots of criticism, but no answers or suggestions. Only Mace seems to be able to provide some sort of reasonable discussion points.

Have you ever shot one?

If not, I will take you out to a range and introduce you to one.  I can then go over terminology and show you how it operates, including breaking it down and re-assembling it.

Yeah, did you read my answer? It's been about 9 years. I shot it several thousand times and was qualified with it before that. A crack shot with it. I could break it down and put it back together no problems. That's what I did.

Again, do you have any other suggestions. A civilian has no need to own an AR or other types of semi-auto assault rifles. Fear is the only reason no one is willing to give up these types of guns. Don't worry, we'll all die of lack of water and tillable land before the government comes for your guns. You will probably need your gun to protect your bunker of supplies from the raving masses of starving and thirsty.

Reminds me of this beautiful song;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fj-10lIrboM

Clearly yesterday proved that we need them, in order to stop bad people from harming others.

Thankfully it isn't the Bill of Needs.  Thankfully I don't need someone telling me what I do or don't.

You asked me what my terminology was, that lead me to believe your experience was not vast.  My terminology is what it actually is, not what the media says it is.

pretty sure that guy didn't have an assault weapon

More than likely not as there really is no such thing.  

He probably had his personal defense firearm or his sporting rifle.  I highly doubt he had a military M16.

Just wondering, what are you considering an assault rifle? A gun used by the military?
The government has defined assault rifles by a few select features, many of which are available on civilian versions.

You lost me at "the government".

Features that don't make a weapon any more likely to be used in a crime.

Oh no, those evil pistol grips!  LOL.

Is there a sovereign citizens or similar handbook where we can learn all your acceptable definitions.

You do realize a pistol grip is intended to make the weapon easier to handle, which much like semi-auto features, makes it a much more efficient killing machine for those who are highly skilled in it's use. Unlike a handgun, a rifle bullet is going to travel a lot farther with more efficiency than when I shoot a handgun from a non conforming position. I can shoot a hand gun from the hip and be very effective at 30 feet so imagine if I practice shooting my semi auto from a lower position if I was say, retreating or on the move. That would keep people on their heels. Sure, you won't be very accurate if you aren't aiming, but the fact that you can at least semi-auto fire rounds from a non-sighted position isn't anything I would want to be on the other end of. You seem to think that all of these "features" have no negative impact. To the average gun owner, they probably don't mean shit because they are never going to use it that way, but to the next mass shooter, they are looking for quick and efficient killing "features".

I don't think any of the mass shooters made use of a pistol grip. They are really only good when you don't even care what direction your bullets are going, you have zero control over your weapon when using one. Even the Vegas shooter who had a target of over 20,000 knew not to use it.
But my point wasn't to argue pistol grips. Pistol grips wouldn't even be a point of discussion if magazines were really fixed and limited. If someone wants to own a military looking weapon then I think they should, just as long as it doesn't function like one. Limit the magazine and let them have the pistol grip.

Are you thinking of a bump stock?

I agree that they are stupid, but I don't want them banned.

No, I meant pistol grips. I was responding to on a comment about why pistol grips should remain on the banned features list. I don't think the banned features make any difference. And even if they did they wouldn't with limited fixed magazines. 
And that would be true even with a bump stock.

Go Beavers

Gern Blansten said:

unsung said:

josevolution said:

unsung said:

Ooooohhhh.

"Those" people.

Get a life.

Asking serious question do you think anything should be done or just keep it the same way as far as gun laws are concerned in other words lets just keep status quo and go around around with these events , there is another one on the way surely you must agree no ?

How do you make people care about the lives of others?

What changed?  

No, I don't support restrictions on gun ownership, clearly bad people still inflict harm.  A guy just rented a truck a week ago.

yeah and now they will likely build barriers on that sidewalk to prevent someone from getting on that path again.

See how that works?

Temporary concrete barriers are already up. 

josevolution

https://www.bustle.com/p/us-gun-laws-compared-to-other-countries-will-make-you-raging-mad-2781644

They can do it it other countries why not here really why not here , please someone give me answer that will make me change my mind ...

CM189191

unsung said:

Thankfully a good guy with a gun stopped this massacre then.

no he didn't. massacre still happened.  

josevolution

unsung said:

josevolution said:

unsung said:

Ooooohhhh.

"Those" people.

Get a life.

Asking serious question do you think anything should be done or just keep it the same way as far as gun laws are concerned in other words lets just keep status quo and go around around with these events , there is another one on the way surely you must agree no ?

How do you make people care about the lives of others?

What changed?  

No, I don't support restrictions on gun ownership, clearly bad people still inflict harm.  A guy just rented a truck a week ago.

unsung said:

josevolution said:

unsung said:

Ooooohhhh.

"Those" people.

Get a life.

Asking serious question do you think anything should be done or just keep it the same way as far as gun laws are concerned in other words lets just keep status quo and go around around with these events , there is another one on the way surely you must agree no ?

How do you make people care about the lives of others?

What changed?  

No, I don't support restrictions on gun ownership, clearly bad people still inflict harm.  A guy just rented a truck a week ago.

Ok thanks for answering i respect your opinion , so we continue to watch in disbelief at how easy is for people to slaughter a bunch of people with these weapons like i said why do we continue to debate the undebatable this is going to keep happening there is no end to it just have to be very aware of where you are stepping into these days and hope there is isn't a maniac with weapons waiting to take out a bunch of folks ....

mcgruff10

interesting read:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/06/politics/trump-guns-texas-shooting/index.html

Why mass shootings don't change the politics of gun control, in 1 Trump quote

Washington (CNN)There is a tendency after mass casualty events like the Las Vegas shooting last month or the Texas church shooting on Sunday to ask if now, finally, things will change in the gridlocked politics of gun control. 

The answer to that question is, always, no. And there's a very simple reason why -- as explained by President Donald Trump when asked at a news conference in Japan about the Texas shooting that left at least 26 people dead: 

"This isn't a guns situation. This is a mental health problem at the highest level. It's a very, very sad event. A very, very sad event, but that's the way I view it."

That's it.

Like those before him, Trump finds familiar path in wake of massacres

Put another way: Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

Similarly, after the Las Vegas shooting that killed 58 in October, Trump referred to the shooter as "a sick demented man" whose "wires are screwed up."

The reality is that for most conservatives and most gun owners, these mass shootings don't move the needle on gun control because, for them, this isn't about guns. It's about mentally ill people. Blaming guns, to their minds, is missing the point entirely.

This view is born out in scads of polling data over the years. A massive recent Pew Research Center poll on Americans' views on guns showed that just three in 10 gun owners believe that restricting the legal sale of guns would result in fewer mass shooting while a majority (56%) of non-gun owners believe that would be the effect. (Another fascinating number from that poll: 54% of gun owners believe there would be less crime in the country if more people owned guns.)

The disconnect between gun rights supporters and gun control advocates in this regard is absolutely vast. 

For gun control backers, there is a direct link between the number of guns in the country, the strength of the National Rifle Association's lobbying efforts to keep any further gun restrictions from becoming law and the number of mass shootings in the country. 

Here are the gun control policies that majorities in both parties support

For supporters of gun rights, there is simply no tie between violence committed with guns and the availability of the guns themselves. They view the right to own a gun as a core freedom; almost three in four gun owners describe the right to own firearms as "essential to their own sense of freedom," according to the Pew poll. Half of all gun owners say owning a weapon is an important part of their "overall identity."

To gun owners, the biggest threat in the aftermath of these mass shootings is not that it might happen again in their community but that politicians will use the shooting as a way to begin to take away their guns. 

US leaders react to Texas church shooting

As evidence, they will note that the shooter in the Texas case was denied a gun license. "How was it that he was able to get a gun?" asked Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, during an appearance on CNN's "New Day" Monday. "By all the facts that we seem to know, he was not supposed to have access to a gun."

Donald Trump Jr. was more blunt on Twitter: "Psycho w illegal gun kills many taken down my law abiding citizen w gun. Which one of these would be out of the equation w more gun control?"

On guns -- like so many other issues in the country these days -- the two parties are not only talking past one another. They seem to be speaking entirely different languages.

josevolution

mcgruff10 said:

interesting read:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/06/politics/trump-guns-texas-shooting/index.html

Why mass shootings don't change the politics of gun control, in 1 Trump quote

Washington (CNN)There is a tendency after mass casualty events like the Las Vegas shooting last month or the Texas church shooting on Sunday to ask if now, finally, things will change in the gridlocked politics of gun control. 

The answer to that question is, always, no. And there's a very simple reason why -- as explained by President Donald Trump when asked at a news conference in Japan about the Texas shooting that left at least 26 people dead: 

"This isn't a guns situation. This is a mental health problem at the highest level. It's a very, very sad event. A very, very sad event, but that's the way I view it."

That's it.

Like those before him, Trump finds familiar path in wake of massacres

Put another way: Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

Similarly, after the Las Vegas shooting that killed 58 in October, Trump referred to the shooter as "a sick demented man" whose "wires are screwed up."

The reality is that for most conservatives and most gun owners, these mass shootings don't move the needle on gun control because, for them, this isn't about guns. It's about mentally ill people. Blaming guns, to their minds, is missing the point entirely.

This view is born out in scads of polling data over the years. A massive recent Pew Research Center poll on Americans' views on guns showed that just three in 10 gun owners believe that restricting the legal sale of guns would result in fewer mass shooting while a majority (56%) of non-gun owners believe that would be the effect. (Another fascinating number from that poll: 54% of gun owners believe there would be less crime in the country if more people owned guns.)

The disconnect between gun rights supporters and gun control advocates in this regard is absolutely vast. 

For gun control backers, there is a direct link between the number of guns in the country, the strength of the National Rifle Association's lobbying efforts to keep any further gun restrictions from becoming law and the number of mass shootings in the country. 

Here are the gun control policies that majorities in both parties support

For supporters of gun rights, there is simply no tie between violence committed with guns and the availability of the guns themselves. They view the right to own a gun as a core freedom; almost three in four gun owners describe the right to own firearms as "essential to their own sense of freedom," according to the Pew poll. Half of all gun owners say owning a weapon is an important part of their "overall identity."

To gun owners, the biggest threat in the aftermath of these mass shootings is not that it might happen again in their community but that politicians will use the shooting as a way to begin to take away their guns. 

US leaders react to Texas church shooting

As evidence, they will note that the shooter in the Texas case was denied a gun license. "How was it that he was able to get a gun?" asked Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, a Republican, during an appearance on CNN's "New Day" Monday. "By all the facts that we seem to know, he was not supposed to have access to a gun."

Donald Trump Jr. was more blunt on Twitter: "Psycho w illegal gun kills many taken down my law abiding citizen w gun. Which one of these would be out of the equation w more gun control?"

On guns -- like so many other issues in the country these days -- the two parties are not only talking past one another. They seem to be speaking entirely different languages.

I don't take anything head bafoon says  serius at all look up what he stated after sandy hook , so i take it you feel lets just keep watching these events happen from our own cozy couches and let cards fall where they may i'll ask you a question why is it that in most other countries they have strict gun laws and you never here about these massacres happening they just don't that fact can't be denied at all ....

Go Beavers

So we’ll be pumping billions of dollars into our mental health system now?

and good to know Don Jr can diagnose people.  

Jason P

Maybe start by focus on enforcing the lax laws we have in place?  Criminal charges to whoever sold this nut job guns.