America's Gun Violence

josevolution

We will be here again discussing the same things over & over with no good results, good debates but still insane we’re at square 1 again ..

Halifax2TheMax

Not a surprise to many of us already. Nothing can be done.

The Looser a State's Gun Laws, the More Mass Shootings It Has

 

Researchers have begun to see a trend: The rate of mass shootings is consistently much higher for places with fewer restrictions on guns.

 

Read More

oftenreading

tempo_n_groove said:

rgambs said:

tempo_n_groove said:

rgambs said:

My cousin texted me that he never needed and no longer wants his AR-15 but he's going to keep it until the government will buy it from him because it's safer with him than with a stranger.

Progress happens in little steps and I see a few now and then.
Another little step: I haven't seen anyone drop the "guns are just tools, man." deuce around here in quite a while.  
Facebook is still full of it, but we've drummed the idiots right out of this place.

Either that or they are tired of being ganged up on, lol.

Good, take that shit to 8chan where it belongs...oops, I guess they got shut down lol

I completely forgot about 8chan.

What was the other whacky one, was it Q?  

I am no expert but I think 8chan hosts a major QAnon forum. 
 

rgambs

I think the episode of Always Sunny in Philadelphia titled, Charlie Goes America All Over Everybody's Ass, sums up our freedom issue here pretty well.

bbiggs

rgambs said:

My cousin texted me that he never needed and no longer wants his AR-15 but he's going to keep it until the government will buy it from him because it's safer with him than with a stranger.

Progress happens in little steps and I see a few now and then.
Another little step: I haven't seen anyone drop the "guns are just tools, man." deuce around here in quite a while.  
Facebook is still full of it, but we've drummed the idiots right out of this place.

If this could gain momentum on a large scale I’d gladly follow suit. I don’t own an AR, but I’d give up my 2 handguns, with as little shooting as I do at the range, if it would help the problem. Sadly, it wouldn’t help an iota. I wish I/we could do something to help. It’s going to take much greater forces. 

rgambs

bbiggs said:

rgambs said:

My cousin texted me that he never needed and no longer wants his AR-15 but he's going to keep it until the government will buy it from him because it's safer with him than with a stranger.

Progress happens in little steps and I see a few now and then.
Another little step: I haven't seen anyone drop the "guns are just tools, man." deuce around here in quite a while.  
Facebook is still full of it, but we've drummed the idiots right out of this place.

If this could gain momentum on a large scale I’d gladly follow suit. I don’t own an AR, but I’d give up my 2 handguns, with as little shooting as I do at the range, if it would help the problem. Sadly, it wouldn’t help an iota. I wish I/we could do something to help. It’s going to take much greater forces. 

Yeah, like an asteroid impact or something.

But we have to try.

mickeyrat

tempo_n_groove said:

rgambs said:

tempo_n_groove said:

rgambs said:

My cousin texted me that he never needed and no longer wants his AR-15 but he's going to keep it until the government will buy it from him because it's safer with him than with a stranger.

Progress happens in little steps and I see a few now and then.
Another little step: I haven't seen anyone drop the "guns are just tools, man." deuce around here in quite a while.  
Facebook is still full of it, but we've drummed the idiots right out of this place.

Either that or they are tired of being ganged up on, lol.

Good, take that shit to 8chan where it belongs...oops, I guess they got shut down lol

I completely forgot about 8chan.

What was the other whacky one, was it Q?  

Q Anon, not sure that s a forum though as much as its a group within different platforms.

Spiritual_Chaos

https://twitter.com/morganLOOKS/status/1158519016576737282

Spiritual_Chaos

Heartbreaking

https://twitter.com/ericbradner/status/1159212028067819520

Halifax2TheMax

mattsl1983 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mattsl1983 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

rgambs said:

@mattsl1983

Nobody is going to take the time to answer your fake question because we know you and your schtick, it's the same old same. 
You ask a question pretending to be sincere, when in fact you are just fishing for a chance to use your preloaded Fox News rebuttals that stink to high heaven.  When the turds you drop start to gather flies, you disappear with a parting shot as if the shit you left on the floor was a victory.

You are asking for posters to give detailed solutions and your only reply will be a smugly stated "won't work" and despite how much time some people spend here, NOBODY had time for that.

This.

Oh okay.  So you label me and differ the question.  I get it.  You must be maxed out.  Such a simpleton response.  I thought you were smarter than that.  But what the hey, if you have no real answer, downplay the question.  Point, counter point.  You win my maxed out friend.

You just claimed universal background checks wouldn’t do anything and I responded that the current Presidential candidate from Colorado would strenuously disagree with you because Colorado passed the legislation that sits before the senate 20 years ago. But, you know, no solutions. Been a few hours now, what solutions do you offer?
 

How would background checks stopped either the El Paso or Dayton shootings?  Trump has just been criticized for the left because he said he would support better background checks, and the lefts response was it wouldn’t have been enough to prevent those shootings.  If you are asking me, yes, I support better background checks.  So here we are agreeing, but still ok prevention.  Same boat, but you refuse to paddle the same direction I’m trying to go.  I’ll paddle your direction if it’s a solution.

Why are you answering a question with a question? And you never did answer my question regarding gun violence in Texas and whether you’re only concerned with gun violence in Chicago.

To answer your question, I’m not sure it would have but it might have prevented other knuckle heads who shouldn’t have firearms from getting them the easy way, legally from a “responsible” gun owner or seller. I’ve only heard that he bought his gun legally and it appears Tejas has lax restrictions regarding background checks.

Regarding Team Trump Treason and his support of background checks, it’s tepid, he can’t close the deal and I’d have more faith if he didn’t quietly weaken gun laws via EOs upon taking office. Keep believing he’s on the side of “doing something.”

Halifax2TheMax

mattsl1983 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mattsl1983 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mattsl1983 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mattsl1983 said:

So does anyone have a real solution?  Two mass shootings.  One from a far right extremist, one from a far left extremist.  I’m sorry, but you can’t just point fingers and blame one side or the other.  Any actual solutions instead of the blame game and yelling trumpers or antifa’ers?  

Do all of us a favor and start on page one of this thread and catch up.

This is why you can’t have a conversation around here.

What solutions would you offer for ending gun violence in Chicago or anywhere? How would you address hospital diversions? A woman working in a hospital in Chicago or Illinois had a heart attack or asthma attack and was diverted from her hospital to the one next door. She died. Where’s your outrage?

Nothing can be done.

Hmm, last I checked I asked for solutions because obviously I don’t have them.  If your response is to attack me for my stance on asking, good for you.  Oh look, still no solution. Thanks for attacking me with no real input except for you taking a big ol moral chair to explain why you have no real input, but rationalizing why you don’t have any real input.  You really furthered the conversation buddy.

Again, start on page one of this thread and catch up. Expanded Universal background checks as passed in the house and waiting action in the senate is one step toward a solution. What do you offer? Do you lack an understanding of the issue, possible solutions and/or critical thinking skills? You’re not stupid, get creative or do you prefer to allow others to decide what the solutions should be, buddy?

So I’m not going to read 500 pages of forum posts. Bash me if you will.  Expanded background checks don’t prevent any of these shootings.  And what is wrong with you?  Seriously do you think you are the smartest person in the room and therefore you feel entitled to just be an asshole that thinks your ideas don’t stink when in fact they smell like the same old shit because you actually have no solution yourself and regurgitate pointless ideas that prove to not accomplish anything, and then go off and try to run down the person that’s asking for answers stating that they don’t have any answer?  Well duh, hinge why that person is asking for a solution.  You are only half as intelligent as you think you are.  You’ve taken your to the Max way to literal bud.  Don’t be that asshole that offers nothing in the end but spouts crap all day. 

The senator and current presidential candidate from Colorado would strongly disagree with you, but you know, bring nothing to the table.
 
 

Facts?

When you begin linking to facts, or backing up your ridiculous claims with “facts” I’ll respond in kind. Have a great evening 

No Coder

mattsl1983 said:

cincybearcat said:

mattsl1983 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mattsl1983 said:

Gern Blansten said:

It's always interesting when the guy shows up with one of these arguments:
1. The AR-15 isn't an assault rifle
2. The (insert whatever weapon the latest mass shooter used) isn't any different than your Grandpa's 22

It always interests me when a guy 
1) doesn’t understand guns
2) thinks he knows something about guns
3) offers nothing to the conversation except the I think I know about guns but I really don’t.

now to entertain you, let’s say ar’s are illegal.  If someone’s going to commit these acts, do you really think it would be hard for them to get a hold of one? 

In what way is that a reason not to make them illegal?

If that’s your response, that’s exactly why the should be legal.  What difference right?

So if you are saying people will get them anyhow...even if illegal.  Are you for not having anything be illegal?  Cause you could make the same argument for almost anything couldn't you?

Isn’t that kind of how the war on drugs has gone, the war on immigration has gone?  Let’s not pretend that because something becomes illegal it ceases to exist.  

This is quite possibly the dumbest thing I've read on this forum, and there's quite a lot of competition for the title!!

If things are Illegal, it is definitely HARDER to get them, not impossible, BUT harder. Just maybe the average nutbag 16-18 year old who hates life and wants to shoot up a school because he was laughed at one day, won't have the money he requires or the connections to buy one of these on the black market, as the cost has skyrocketed now that these are not sold in shops. It may not stop all  mass shootings happening, but it can't hurt to limit the availability of these weapons

Drugs are a terrible comparison, because these can be made in any house by any idiot who wants to. Automatic weapons can't be mass produced in back yards.

mcgruff10

Red flag laws might have worked with the El Paso shooter:
https://apple.news/Afk3Y94JeSzqR3v0UUhb8kA

cincybearcat

mcgruff10 said:

Red flag laws might have worked with the El Paso shooter:
https://apple.news/Afk3Y94JeSzqR3v0UUhb8kA

Not sure in this case.  from what I heard she called worried that he was too young and immature to own that gun.  Didn't say anything about worried how he'd use it on others, etc.  So, again from what I heard, the police simply listened, asked a few questions and let her know that he could legally own that gun.

PJPOWER

mcgruff10 said:

Red flag laws might have worked with the El Paso shooter:
https://apple.news/Afk3Y94JeSzqR3v0UUhb8kA

Maybe, maybe not.  There should still be some sort of burden of proof or a certain amount of evidence met before someone gets “red flagged” to keep people from making erroneous reports, but where should the line there be?  If they have convictions related to anger, have a recorded threat, history of abuse, anything that can substantiate the claim that they are a legitimate threat to themselves or others.  It should not be “this person is angry and they have guns” and then the FBI raids their house.

Gern Blansten

cincybearcat said:

mcgruff10 said:

Red flag laws might have worked with the El Paso shooter:
https://apple.news/Afk3Y94JeSzqR3v0UUhb8kA

Not sure in this case.  from what I heard she called worried that he was too young and immature to own that gun.  Didn't say anything about worried how he'd use it on others, etc.  So, again from what I heard, the police simply listened, asked a few questions and let her know that he could legally own that gun.

I'm not saying we don't need something like a red flag law but it won't be a fix for a weapons ban.  You can imagine how many shootings we will have where the red flag law didn't do what it was supposed to do.  Or the red flag occurred too close to the shooting (like El Paso) that there wasn't time to act, etc.

A weapons ban is inevitable.  It's just a matter of how long the GOP is willing to put up with dead bodies.

Halifax2TheMax

Trump’s openness to extensive background checks for gun buys draws warning from NRA

President Trump has repeatedly told lawmakers and aides in private conversations that he is open to endorsing extensive background checks in the wake of two mass shootings, prompting a warning from the National Rifle Association and concerns among White House aides, according to lawmakers and administration officials. 

Trump, speaking to reporters Wednesday before visiting Dayton, Ohio, and El Paso, where weekend shootings left 31 dead, said there “was great appetite for background checks” amid an outcry over government inaction in the face of repeated mass shootings.

Trump’s previous declarations of support for tougher gun controls, including after the deadly Parkland, Fla., shooting in February 2018, have foundered without a sustained push from the president and support from the NRA or Republican lawmakers. Even Trump’s advisers question how far he will go on any effort.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-openness-to-extensive-background-checks-for-gun-buys-draws-warning-from-nra/2019/08/07/a5f82060-b92d-11e9-a091-6a96e67d9cce_story.html?noredirect=on&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1

I guess a 3% to 6% drop in legal gun sales has the NRA and the gun industry concerned. That 3% to 6% drop might just save your life, but yea, you know, nothing can be done.

mrussel1

Halifax2TheMax said:

Trump’s openness to extensive background checks for gun buys draws warning from NRA

President Trump has repeatedly told lawmakers and aides in private conversations that he is open to endorsing extensive background checks in the wake of two mass shootings, prompting a warning from the National Rifle Association and concerns among White House aides, according to lawmakers and administration officials. 

Trump, speaking to reporters Wednesday before visiting Dayton, Ohio, and El Paso, where weekend shootings left 31 dead, said there “was great appetite for background checks” amid an outcry over government inaction in the face of repeated mass shootings.

Trump’s previous declarations of support for tougher gun controls, including after the deadly Parkland, Fla., shooting in February 2018, have foundered without a sustained push from the president and support from the NRA or Republican lawmakers. Even Trump’s advisers question how far he will go on any effort.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-openness-to-extensive-background-checks-for-gun-buys-draws-warning-from-nra/2019/08/07/a5f82060-b92d-11e9-a091-6a96e67d9cce_story.html?noredirect=on&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1

I guess a 3% to 6% drop in legal gun sales has the NRA and the gun industry concerned. That 3% to 6% drop might just save your life, but yea, you know, nothing can be done.

This shows the true weakness of Trump politically.  He doesn't shape opinion, he parrots it.  

Ledbetterman10

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Trump’s openness to extensive background checks for gun buys draws warning from NRA

President Trump has repeatedly told lawmakers and aides in private conversations that he is open to endorsing extensive background checks in the wake of two mass shootings, prompting a warning from the National Rifle Association and concerns among White House aides, according to lawmakers and administration officials. 

Trump, speaking to reporters Wednesday before visiting Dayton, Ohio, and El Paso, where weekend shootings left 31 dead, said there “was great appetite for background checks” amid an outcry over government inaction in the face of repeated mass shootings.

Trump’s previous declarations of support for tougher gun controls, including after the deadly Parkland, Fla., shooting in February 2018, have foundered without a sustained push from the president and support from the NRA or Republican lawmakers. Even Trump’s advisers question how far he will go on any effort.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-openness-to-extensive-background-checks-for-gun-buys-draws-warning-from-nra/2019/08/07/a5f82060-b92d-11e9-a091-6a96e67d9cce_story.html?noredirect=on&wpisrc=nl_most&wpmm=1

I guess a 3% to 6% drop in legal gun sales has the NRA and the gun industry concerned. That 3% to 6% drop might just save your life, but yea, you know, nothing can be done.

This shows the true weakness of Trump politically.  He doesn't shape opinion, he parrots it.  

I've been saying the same thing. There's a reason that Trump has the highest in-party approval rating of any president ever. He'll do or say anything the GOP wants. Or more specially, he'll do or say anything the GOP has wanted to say or do over the years, but didn't have the nerve to. 

Say he ignores this "warning" from the NRA and goes ahead with more extensive background checks. Would that really hurt him politically? Sure it would piss off some people on the right and maybe his GOP approval rating drops from 89% to like 80%, but he'd pick up some support from other people that just want the president to do the right thing when it comes to mass shootings.

I think that the NRA spent about $30 million to help Trump get elected in 2016. Is Trump afraid of losing that? That's chunk change in the grand scheme of things. And it's not like the NRA would ever endorse or contribute to Biden or any of the Dems. So Trump really has nothing to lose politically by going against them. In fact, he'd have a lot to gain. He wouldn't look like such a puppet. 

Meltdown99

Red flag laws might catch the odd duck that is planning a mass shooting but the effects will be minimal.  The US and Canada needs to ban assault weapons and the US needs better gun control.  But that will never happen because your politicians are plain greedy and somehow feel they can not get elected without NRA money.  I call bullshit.  Politicians should only be allowed 1 6 year term...ban ALL lobbying,  You get caught lobbying or excepting money from a lobbyist max jail time...say  25 years...must serve 95% of your time.