America's Gun Violence #2

PJ_Soul

Lerxst1992 said:

PJ_Soul said:

WRONG THREAD

If to my comment, please take a closer look at what I was replying to…thanks!

Haha. No, I had posted something in the wrong thread, so replaced the text with that.

HughFreakingDillon

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:

But yet when I mention ban the features of assault rifles and AR15s that you don’t like, the response is just “no, ban AR15s!”
If it’s not a specifics gun you’re trying to ban, then why are you against banning the features you don’t like? I brought that up and you said no. Which, again, leads me to believe you just don’t like a specific gun.

Actually YOU said "we don't need to ban AR-15s" and I said "Yeah we need to ban AR-15s"

he said that because there are (apparently) many types of guns similar to AR15's, but if you only ban AR15's, it does basically nothing. hence his Kleenex analogy. AR15 is the trademark, not the type. 

Right...and again, we aren't writing legislation here. I don't want to type 1000 words for every kleenex that needs to be listed.  Don't we all get that point?

now that you say it, yes. but when you mention AR15's specifically, it appears as though you are talking about that specific rifle, not all ones like it. 

full disclosure: until a few minutes ago, I thought AR15 was the type, so I didn't see any problem with saying "ban AR15's". now I see that's incorrect. if you want people to take you seriously in a discussion, specifics matter. otherwise the person you are debating has every right to believe you don't know what you are talking about, and if you don't know what you are talking about, why should they entertain your ideas?

Halifax2TheMax

GREAT country we have here. Exceptional. Every country should be as great as 'Murica. What a shithole.

Texas school shooting

 

(The Washington Post)

More than 311,000 students have experienced gun violence at school since Columbine

The Washington Post spent months determining how many children have been exposed to gun violence during school hours since the Columbine High massacre in 1999.

By Washington Post Staff ●  Read more » 

Gunman was bullied as a child, grew increasingly violent, friends say 

By Robert Klemko, Silvia Foster-Frau and Shawn Boburg ●  Read more » 

From Sandy Hook to Buffalo and Uvalde: Ten years of failure on gun control

By Ashley Parker, Tyler Pager and Colby Itkowitz ●  Read more » 

 

 

 

 

Gern Blansten

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:

But yet when I mention ban the features of assault rifles and AR15s that you don’t like, the response is just “no, ban AR15s!”
If it’s not a specifics gun you’re trying to ban, then why are you against banning the features you don’t like? I brought that up and you said no. Which, again, leads me to believe you just don’t like a specific gun.

Actually YOU said "we don't need to ban AR-15s" and I said "Yeah we need to ban AR-15s"

he said that because there are (apparently) many types of guns similar to AR15's, but if you only ban AR15's, it does basically nothing. hence his Kleenex analogy. AR15 is the trademark, not the type. 

Right...and again, we aren't writing legislation here. I don't want to type 1000 words for every kleenex that needs to be listed.  Don't we all get that point?

now that you say it, yes. but when you mention AR15's specifically, it appears as though you are talking about that specific rifle, not all ones like it. 

full disclosure: until a few minutes ago, I thought AR15 was the type, so I didn't see any problem with saying "ban AR15's". now I see that's incorrect. if you want people to take you seriously in a discussion, specifics matter. otherwise the person you are debating has every right to believe you don't know what you are talking about, and if you don't know what you are talking about, why should they entertain your ideas?

and again....mace stated that AR-15s didn't need to be banned and I disagreed. I wasn't stating that was the only thing that needed banned. If you look back a few pages you will see that I started the day saying that "assault weapons" should be banned.

Now we can argue that an AR-15 isn't an assault weapon right?

Gern Blansten

Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:

Parksy said:

tempo_n_groove said:

dankind said:

mace1229 said:

Cropduster-80 said:

mace1229 said:

Cropduster-80 said:

Merkin Baller said:

What kind of country and citizenry allows this to continue to happen? 

a country in which the supreme court didn’t even rule on an individuals right to own a gun until 2008

Yep, that’s true.if you actually read the second amendment it makes more sense as to why an individual right had never been recognised. I suspect a lot of pro gun people don’t actually read it though 

the old west had more gun control than today. Blanket bans inside cities was common 

an individual right to own a gun has been recognised for less time than a right to an abortion. Saying it’s set in stone or not open to revision isn’t true 

That depends on how you define gun control. The gun laws back then more often applied to open or concealed carrying in public. But purchasing and tracking firearms was much more free. Today you don’t have to register a gun made before 1898, and pretty much any other laws that apply like a wait period. I always assumed that’s because that’s when they started keeping records, but I could be wrong.

A lot of those restrictions today, like waiting period, registration, background checks are bypassed by private sales or gun shows 

so basically laws already in place that have pretty broad agreement have loopholes so large it renders the laws pointless 

if I’m a crazy person who would get flagged in a background check, illl just go to a gun show instead 

I didn’t even know that gunshow loophole was a thing because all the states I’ve lived in have the same requirements at a gunshow or private party saw as a gun store would.
I think the number of states with that loophole is getting smaller.

I could go to a flea market this weekend and come back with an arsenal without ever even showing anyone my ID.

I did that in Florida when I lived there and thought that was nuts and I'm a 2A guy...

Question... without trying to sound like a doosh... it's a legit question 

What will it take for you to no longer be a "2A Guy?"  And for my own understanding... what makes you a 2A guy? 

What do you mean by “2A guy”? Do you mean stricter laws, or just owning guns in general?

I see the same circle every time this comes up. Most gun owners are okay with, or even want stronger gun laws and common sense laws. But when we disagree with 1 thing people lose their mind. 

We don’t need to ban AR15s. One, from my understanding, they aren’t used in all these mass shootings which they are usually reported to have been used. That list that was posted earlier isn’t accurate. So it’s not like banning 1 gun is going to solve much. AR15 has become a common term to basically refer to assault rifles. It’s like saying Kleenex when you need a tissue.

Ive said before ban features. Ban high capacity magazines, or even detachable magazines. You can have an AR15, but with a fixed magazine of 5 rounds it poses a much smaller threat. But too often people want to ban a gun or features based off what it looks like and not the function.

Yeah we need to ban AR-15s....even the guy that invented them says so

for the sake of the argument....I referred to the AR-15 specifically because mace did. Not that is being used against me. Give me a fucking break.

HughFreakingDillon

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

mace1229 said:

But yet when I mention ban the features of assault rifles and AR15s that you don’t like, the response is just “no, ban AR15s!”
If it’s not a specifics gun you’re trying to ban, then why are you against banning the features you don’t like? I brought that up and you said no. Which, again, leads me to believe you just don’t like a specific gun.

Actually YOU said "we don't need to ban AR-15s" and I said "Yeah we need to ban AR-15s"

he said that because there are (apparently) many types of guns similar to AR15's, but if you only ban AR15's, it does basically nothing. hence his Kleenex analogy. AR15 is the trademark, not the type. 

Right...and again, we aren't writing legislation here. I don't want to type 1000 words for every kleenex that needs to be listed.  Don't we all get that point?

now that you say it, yes. but when you mention AR15's specifically, it appears as though you are talking about that specific rifle, not all ones like it. 

full disclosure: until a few minutes ago, I thought AR15 was the type, so I didn't see any problem with saying "ban AR15's". now I see that's incorrect. if you want people to take you seriously in a discussion, specifics matter. otherwise the person you are debating has every right to believe you don't know what you are talking about, and if you don't know what you are talking about, why should they entertain your ideas?

and again....mace stated that AR-15s didn't need to be banned and I disagreed. I wasn't stating that was the only thing that needed banned. If you look back a few pages you will see that I started the day saying that "assault weapons" should be banned.

Now we can argue that an AR-15 isn't an assault weapon right?

well that's likely where we're headed, so yes. 

Hi!

Poncier

cutz said:

Gern Blansten said:

tempo_n_groove said:

dankind said:

mace1229 said:

Cropduster-80 said:

mace1229 said:

Cropduster-80 said:

Merkin Baller said:

What kind of country and citizenry allows this to continue to happen? 

a country in which the supreme court didn’t even rule on an individuals right to own a gun until 2008

Yep, that’s true.if you actually read the second amendment it makes more sense as to why an individual right had never been recognised. I suspect a lot of pro gun people don’t actually read it though 

the old west had more gun control than today. Blanket bans inside cities was common 

an individual right to own a gun has been recognised for less time than a right to an abortion. Saying it’s set in stone or not open to revision isn’t true 

That depends on how you define gun control. The gun laws back then more often applied to open or concealed carrying in public. But purchasing and tracking firearms was much more free. Today you don’t have to register a gun made before 1898, and pretty much any other laws that apply like a wait period. I always assumed that’s because that’s when they started keeping records, but I could be wrong.

A lot of those restrictions today, like waiting period, registration, background checks are bypassed by private sales or gun shows 

so basically laws already in place that have pretty broad agreement have loopholes so large it renders the laws pointless 

if I’m a crazy person who would get flagged in a background check, illl just go to a gun show instead 

I didn’t even know that gunshow loophole was a thing because all the states I’ve lived in have the same requirements at a gunshow or private party saw as a gun store would.
I think the number of states with that loophole is getting smaller.

I could go to a flea market this weekend and come back with an arsenal without ever even showing anyone my ID.

I did that in Florida when I lived there and thought that was nuts and I'm a 2A guy...

We are all "2A guys"....the problem is how we define the 2nd amendment. An amendment which was based on weapons that took a minute to load a single round.

Claiming the 2A keeps us safe from tyranny is just moronic.

Something like this?

https://youtu.be/CNIt8RvGP5M

"Ram the bullet fully home"
"Place a fresh cap on the nipple"
"Bring the rifle to full cock"

Close your eyes and you'd swear this is a blow by blow narration of Saturday night with George and Kellyanne Conway.

cincybearcat

HughFreakingDillon said:

I get where mace is coming from. he's trying to come up with solutions and is getting mocked by people who, let's be honest here, don't really know the specifics of what we are talking about. many of us know the point we want to get to, but we don't the specific verbiage. 

It’s just deflection. Used every time. Either start on about mental health or semantics of guns. 

“That’s not an assault weapon”….

We get it and you should get the point being made.

HughFreakingDillon

cincybearcat said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I get where mace is coming from. he's trying to come up with solutions and is getting mocked by people who, let's be honest here, don't really know the specifics of what we are talking about. many of us know the point we want to get to, but we don't the specific verbiage. 

It’s just deflection. Used every time. Either start on about mental health or semantics of guns. 

“That’s not an assault weapon”….

We get it and you should get the point being made.

I agree it can be a deflection. but mace is a good guy who has legitimate questions about what people are proposing. 

Halifax2TheMax

Poncier said:

cutz said:

Gern Blansten said:

tempo_n_groove said:

dankind said:

mace1229 said:

Cropduster-80 said:

mace1229 said:

Cropduster-80 said:

Merkin Baller said:

What kind of country and citizenry allows this to continue to happen? 

a country in which the supreme court didn’t even rule on an individuals right to own a gun until 2008

Yep, that’s true.if you actually read the second amendment it makes more sense as to why an individual right had never been recognised. I suspect a lot of pro gun people don’t actually read it though 

the old west had more gun control than today. Blanket bans inside cities was common 

an individual right to own a gun has been recognised for less time than a right to an abortion. Saying it’s set in stone or not open to revision isn’t true 

That depends on how you define gun control. The gun laws back then more often applied to open or concealed carrying in public. But purchasing and tracking firearms was much more free. Today you don’t have to register a gun made before 1898, and pretty much any other laws that apply like a wait period. I always assumed that’s because that’s when they started keeping records, but I could be wrong.

A lot of those restrictions today, like waiting period, registration, background checks are bypassed by private sales or gun shows 

so basically laws already in place that have pretty broad agreement have loopholes so large it renders the laws pointless 

if I’m a crazy person who would get flagged in a background check, illl just go to a gun show instead 

I didn’t even know that gunshow loophole was a thing because all the states I’ve lived in have the same requirements at a gunshow or private party saw as a gun store would.
I think the number of states with that loophole is getting smaller.

I could go to a flea market this weekend and come back with an arsenal without ever even showing anyone my ID.

I did that in Florida when I lived there and thought that was nuts and I'm a 2A guy...

We are all "2A guys"....the problem is how we define the 2nd amendment. An amendment which was based on weapons that took a minute to load a single round.

Claiming the 2A keeps us safe from tyranny is just moronic.

Something like this?

https://youtu.be/CNIt8RvGP5M

"Ram the bullet fully home"
"Place a fresh cap on the nipple"
"Bring the rifle to full cock"

Close your eyes and you'd swear this is a blow by blow narration of Saturday night with George and Kellyanne Conway.

Or Johnny Depp and Amber Heard.

tbergs

...Maybe instead of trying to appease gun advocates by word smithing "assault rifle", we could just agree something needs to change.
...Maybe instead of being concerned over protesters on the sidewalks outside of Justice's houses, we could protect our children in school.
...Maybe instead of arming teachers, we require background checks that include a psychological assessment prior to purchasing semi-autos.
...Maybe instead of thoughts, prayers and deepest condolences, we take action to reduce gun violence through laws and policies.
...Maybe instead of being concerned about 18 years olds purchasing alcohol, we could increase age requirements for gun purchases.
...Maybe instead of stopping the steal and saving America, we save our children by voting for politicians who support meaningful legislation.
...Maybe it's just another day in America.

I tend to think we can do better, but at the end of the day/week/month/year it always falls back to that last point. Pathetic. The death of children continues to mean nothing, but everyone is really sad about it.

Gern Blansten

It sounds like the police were outgunned at first. I really can't believe that police aren't more vocal about these weapons in the hands of the public. 

HughFreakingDillon

Gern Blansten said:

It sounds like the police were outgunned at first. I really can't believe that police aren't more vocal about these weapons in the hands of the public. 

so the whole "good guy with a gun" thing is utter bullshit and some rambo-wannabe loser fantasy? YOU DON'T SAY

Gern Blansten

HughFreakingDillon said:

Gern Blansten said:

It sounds like the police were outgunned at first. I really can't believe that police aren't more vocal about these weapons in the hands of the public. 

so the whole "good guy with a gun" thing is utter bullshit and some rambo-wannabe loser fantasy? YOU DON'T SAY

I have said for years that once we keep adding school shootings and more good guys with guns get taken out because the cops can't tell the difference (when arriving on the scene) we will finally get legislation.

The question is just how many bodies need to pile up.

The Juggler

The Juggler

^
We are dumbest country in the world. 

gimmesometruth27

since nobody wants to do any kind of legislation on guns, how about we require background checks on people purchasing body armor?

more and more often these mass shooters are wearing body armor. maybe if you cannot pass a background check, you cannot get the body armor. so if you are gonna go and do a mass shooting at least it gives the good guys with guns a chance if you are not wearing body armor.

Merkin Baller

Gern Blansten said:

It sounds like the police were outgunned at first. I really can't believe that police aren't more vocal about these weapons in the hands of the public. 

 Or the "Blue Lives Matter" crowd... then again, 1/6/21 and its aftermath confirmed "Blue Lives Matter" was all bullshit anyway. 

Gern Blansten

Merkin Baller said:

Gern Blansten said:

It sounds like the police were outgunned at first. I really can't believe that police aren't more vocal about these weapons in the hands of the public. 

 Or the "Blue Lives Matter" crowd... then again, 1/6/21 and its aftermath confirmed "Blue Lives Matter" was all bullshit anyway. 

yep

static111

Gern Blansten said:

It sounds like the police were outgunned at first. I really can't believe that police aren't more vocal about these weapons in the hands of the public. 

I think that would immediately trigger a don't back the blue response and you'd see a lot of those blue line flags taken down, if the cops started vocalizing that guns are bad.

Gern Blansten

static111 said:

Gern Blansten said:

It sounds like the police were outgunned at first. I really can't believe that police aren't more vocal about these weapons in the hands of the public. 

I think that would immediately trigger a don't back the blue response and you'd see a lot of those blue line flags taken down, if the cops started vocalizing that guns are bad.

From a vocal minority only.

I wouldn't expect police chiefs to come forward and say "guns are bad" I would expect them to say "we cannot adequately defend ourselves when criminals have access to weapons more powerful than we carry". 

tbergs

HughFreakingDillon said:

cincybearcat said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I get where mace is coming from. he's trying to come up with solutions and is getting mocked by people who, let's be honest here, don't really know the specifics of what we are talking about. many of us know the point we want to get to, but we don't the specific verbiage. 

It’s just deflection. Used every time. Either start on about mental health or semantics of guns. 

“That’s not an assault weapon”….

We get it and you should get the point being made.

I agree it can be a deflection. but mace is a good guy who has legitimate questions about what people are proposing. 

A good guy with a gun...that's all we need in the end to stop these events. Anyway, not trying to be an ass, but it's tiring. We've all had this conversation a hundred times and every time it comes down to someone accidentally mis-labeling assault rifle or using the word ban. Then it's a battle back and forth over frivolous shit that shouldn't matter. The point is, why is ownership of a semi-auto rifle or handgun a right we are willing to place higher than the right for our children to be safe?

Parksy

static111 said:

Gern Blansten said:

It sounds like the police were outgunned at first. I really can't believe that police aren't more vocal about these weapons in the hands of the public. 

I think that would immediately trigger a don't back the blue response and you'd see a lot of those blue line flags taken down, if the cops started vocalizing that guns are bad.

My boss and I were talking today about how much more difficult it must be to be a copper in certain states in America.  Like....  not knowing who has a gun and who doesn't and always having to be aware of that risk.   I would think cops would be on the front lines of getting tougher gun laws.... but alas I think a lot of coppers in the states were raised along the same Pro 2A lines.  

Gern Blansten

tbergs said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

cincybearcat said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I get where mace is coming from. he's trying to come up with solutions and is getting mocked by people who, let's be honest here, don't really know the specifics of what we are talking about. many of us know the point we want to get to, but we don't the specific verbiage. 

It’s just deflection. Used every time. Either start on about mental health or semantics of guns. 

“That’s not an assault weapon”….

We get it and you should get the point being made.

I agree it can be a deflection. but mace is a good guy who has legitimate questions about what people are proposing. 

A good guy with a gun...that's all we need in the end to stop these events. Anyway, not trying to be an ass, but it's tiring. We've all had this conversation a hundred times and every time it comes down to someone accidentally mis-labeling assault rifle or using the word ban. Then it's a battle back and forth over frivolous shit that shouldn't matter. The point is, why is ownership of a semi-auto rifle or handgun a right we are willing to place higher than the right for our children to be safe?

well said....jesus christ I can't believe we have to repeat this every fucking time a school gets shot up

static111

Gern Blansten said:

static111 said:

Gern Blansten said:

It sounds like the police were outgunned at first. I really can't believe that police aren't more vocal about these weapons in the hands of the public. 

I think that would immediately trigger a don't back the blue response and you'd see a lot of those blue line flags taken down, if the cops started vocalizing that guns are bad.

From a vocal minority only.

I wouldn't expect police chiefs to come forward and say "guns are bad" I would expect them to say "we cannot adequately defend ourselves when criminals have access to weapons more powerful than we carry". 

They have been saying that for years that's why some precincts are set up with full on military hardware.  The answer is for the cops to gun up!

OnWis97

static111 said:

Gern Blansten said:

It sounds like the police were outgunned at first. I really can't believe that police aren't more vocal about these weapons in the hands of the public. 

I think that would immediately trigger a don't back the blue response and you'd see a lot of those blue line flags taken down, if the cops started vocalizing that guns are bad.

That's probably true. And at this point, with everyone digging in their heels on "sides" it feels like no surprise to see cops making sure to stay on the good side of MAGA. That said, guns have been a hot topic for decades and it would have made some sense in the 1980s or 1990s, or maybe after Columbine, when adherence to the party wasn't so strict, for them to have the stance that "people on the streets carrying guns that we don't even carry makes our jobs more difficult and less safe."  Cops have always been on the right, so maybe it's always been about staying with their side...but the GQP was the GOP and they weren't having loyalty tests yet. And cops themselves were not as polarizing as they are now. It would have made so much sense for cops to drive some changes...

tbergs

static111 said:

Gern Blansten said:

static111 said:

Gern Blansten said:

It sounds like the police were outgunned at first. I really can't believe that police aren't more vocal about these weapons in the hands of the public. 

I think that would immediately trigger a don't back the blue response and you'd see a lot of those blue line flags taken down, if the cops started vocalizing that guns are bad.

From a vocal minority only.

I wouldn't expect police chiefs to come forward and say "guns are bad" I would expect them to say "we cannot adequately defend ourselves when criminals have access to weapons more powerful than we carry". 

They have been saying that for years that's why some precincts are set up with full on military hardware.  The answer is for the cops to gun up!

Ever since that armed robbery in California years ago, police agencies have been outfitted with more fire power, but the problem is they aren't patrolling the hallways of your kid's school with that semi-auto assault rifle draped across their shoulder and decked out in full body armor. Our police would need to be outfitted like our military on foreign soil in order to properly engage most of these fucking asshole mass shooters. Is that the next "solution"? Military presence at schools like we're in a war torn country. I fully believe that a lot of people think that is the answer and want their kids going to school with shit like that as the standard.

HughFreakingDillon

tbergs said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

cincybearcat said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I get where mace is coming from. he's trying to come up with solutions and is getting mocked by people who, let's be honest here, don't really know the specifics of what we are talking about. many of us know the point we want to get to, but we don't the specific verbiage. 

It’s just deflection. Used every time. Either start on about mental health or semantics of guns. 

“That’s not an assault weapon”….

We get it and you should get the point being made.

I agree it can be a deflection. but mace is a good guy who has legitimate questions about what people are proposing. 

A good guy with a gun...that's all we need in the end to stop these events. Anyway, not trying to be an ass, but it's tiring. We've all had this conversation a hundred times and every time it comes down to someone accidentally mis-labeling assault rifle or using the word ban. Then it's a battle back and forth over frivolous shit that shouldn't matter. The point is, why is ownership of a semi-auto rifle or handgun a right we are willing to place higher than the right for our children to be safe?

I understand what you are saying. completely. However, maybe these frivolous arguments wouldn't occur if we would learn the correct verbiage when entering a discussion? how can a discussion be had about something like that if we don't first understand the language. this is why it always comes down to the 2A'ers thinking "THE LEFT IS COMING FOR ALL YOUR GUNS". because that's how it's presented, and the onus is somehow on them to decipher what it is we're talking about. 

it's really no different than the right arguing about something as broad as "late term abortions", and then it turns into a kerfuffle about what that exactly means. it's because they don't know what they are talking about. or, as the left assumes, it's coded language for "THE RIGHT IS TRYING TO BAN ALL ABORTIONS FROM CONCEPTION". which is also (many times) false. 

HughFreakingDillon

I had a back and forth with @PJPOWER a while back about the Alec Baldwin thing. It turns out, I had no fucking clue what I was talking about. And it took several pages to get there. lol. I'm not going to be one of those "do your research before you come and post", but at least the bare minimum of agreed upon terms so it doesn't end up in merry go round discussions.