I was raised republican, father and brother hunted, dad had 3 guns in his top dresser drawer, they were not locked up. Anytime someone came over those guns would be the first thing I showed my friends. My favorite was his derringer, that little gun fascinated me till I moved. I target practiced with my father all the time. My father was suicidal with anger management issues. He should not have been able to touch a gun, period.
As I said before, gave up my only gun a couple months ago, don’t remember which shooting it was that flicked the switch, there’s so many I lose count. I felt like I contributed to a solution, as small as it was. So protecting the 2nd amendment means absolutely nothing to me any longer. It was simple. And now if the baseball bats we have all over the house or our pb doesn’t stop someone then it was meant to be.
Some of you say you will never change your mind while others defend every stupid fucking word you learned in your youth about guns and your rights or worse you made these choices in adulthood. Everyone has the ability to change.
Major kudos, cblock. You are amazing, thank you!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Ban assault rifles. Fuck the semantics. Jesus christ.
I’m going to be that guy here, sorry…
Civilians don’t own Assault Rifles. This is part of the semantics and wording you’ll get into unfortunately.
Say ‘ban assault “type” weapons and their similar characteristics’ and you will get no hem and haw.
I completely understand what you mean when you said it but like someone else said there will be a merry go round about specifics but like I said, I understand what you mean and that should be understood.
I think I will. This bullshit is so frustrating. The semantics that people whine about is so fucking stupid. Every god damned time this happens it's the same god damned thing. I'm not even a huge Beto fan but the man is authentic. You can just tell when someone speaks from the heart. Our country is fucked up and it will stay that way until more decent people get elected....and I'm losing faith that that's going to happen.
I think I will. This bullshit is so frustrating. The semantics that people whine about is so fucking stupid. Every god damned time this happens it's the same god damned thing. I'm not even a huge Beto fan but the man is authentic. You can just tell when someone speaks from the heart. Our country is fucked up and it will stay that way until more decent people get elected....and I'm losing faith that that's going to happen.
You said it, Juggler!
And yeah, it's unnerving to think were things could go this November. It could turn out OK, but it could also be an absolute fucking disaster. I'm hoping for the best, but hope is hard these days.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Ban assault rifles. Fuck the semantics. Jesus christ.
I’m going to be that guy here, sorry…
Civilians don’t own Assault Rifles. This is part of the semantics and wording you’ll get into unfortunately.
Say ‘ban assault “type” weapons and their similar characteristics’ and you will get no hem and haw.
I completely understand what you mean when you said it but like someone else said there will be a merry go round about specifics but like I said, I understand what you mean and that should be understood.
EDIT......jesus christ...another semantic response! I didn't even notice at first. Thanks for clarifying what you mean Tempo. I hear you. The whole thing is just so annoying to me.
Yeah man, I wasn’t being a jerk about it, just pointing out that I understand what you mean.
The assault weapons ban was ending during a time where social media was just ramping up. We did have columbine during that ban too. MO besides a gun that keeps coming up? People getting picked on and or mental problems.
I’m not going to argue that the gun didn’t come into the equation but damn man there are other things going on that we need to look into…
Ban assault rifles. Fuck the semantics. Jesus christ.
I’m going to be that guy here, sorry…
Civilians don’t own Assault Rifles. This is part of the semantics and wording you’ll get into unfortunately.
Say ‘ban assault “type” weapons and their similar characteristics’ and you will get no hem and haw.
I completely understand what you mean when you said it but like someone else said there will be a merry go round about specifics but like I said, I understand what you mean and that should be understood.
EDIT......jesus christ...another semantic response! I didn't even notice at first. Thanks for clarifying what you mean Tempo. I hear you. The whole thing is just so annoying to me.
Yeah man, I wasn’t being a jerk about it, just pointing out that I understand what you mean.
The assault weapons ban was ending during a time where social media was just ramping up. We did have columbine during that ban too. MO besides a gun that keeps coming up? People getting picked on and or mental problems.
I’m not going to argue that the gun didn’t come into the equation but damn man there are other things going on that we need to look into…
What does social media have to do with it? Does social media not exist anywhere else on the face of the earth?
There are crazy and depressed people everywhere. The difference between here and everywhere else is.....we all know what the difference is. No need to get the semantics wrong again. haha
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.
I’ve believed for a while the biggest obstacle for gun restrictions is actually the anti gun crowd. That is a usually response when people who own guns and know what they are taking about want to give honest feedback. I really don’t get it.
Anyone who is upset should want to know the semantics. If you want to have a voice and create change, know what you’re taking about. I just don’t understand it, the whole dismissing input from gun owners, or just saying “you’re taking about semantics.” Yeah, because that’s important.
I actually do believe a lot of people think banning AR15s will help solve the problem, not knowing that there’s lots of guns capable of doing the same thing that don’t look even close to it. And even just a ban on assault rifles won’t be as effective, manufactures and people will find ways to around an “assault rifle” ban by adding or removing some cosmetic feature or something. That’s happened before, it’ll happen again
Most gun owners are willing to cooperate and come up with solutions and add input . They just never seem to be received well.
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.
how about this? just ban all guns/cartriges with the CAPABILITIES of mass casualties without having to reload?
I'm not going to taking some damn class on gun specifics in order to procure the right to say that I'm sick to fucking death of having these weapons available so readily- weapons that have been used over and over again in mass killings. There is no reason anyone other than a soldier needs to possess such a weapon. I don't give a fuck what their specifics are- I just know (we all know) they are manufactured for the sole purpose of killing large numbers of people as quickly as possible. It does not require a degree in firearms technology or ballistics to understand this, let alone to be really sick to death of this happening over and over and over again.
I don’t disagree with HGD’s statement. I sort of addressed it indirectly by responding to other comments. Banning broad categories or types will be less effective. Ban the features that make them capable of mass casualties. Ban detached magazines of more than 5 rounds, or require them to be fixed altogether. You won’t have a mass casualty situation like we did yesterday with an AR15 with a fixed magazine of 5 rounds, even if it is an AR15. But ban weapons based on a category or group, manufacturers and owners will just find a way to modify it so it fits into a new category. I really don’t know why several seem to be getting defensive taking about those “semantics.” If a social media thread dedicated to a gun control discussion isn’t the place, then I guess there’s zero hope anyone working together on a solution. But people should really listen when gun owners offer suggestions, we know what people are going to do to work around the law.
well I sure hope that if any legislation is made that they care about "semantics".
it's less semantics and more clarification for the purposes of discussion. not sure what the problem is with that.
We're people on a god damned pearl jam message board. Pretty sure a bill would label things correctly. LOL
I know. You're not getting my point.
For those who want to discuss the fine points of gun legislation, the details would be important, for sure. I guess you could say my perspective is more general. From my way of looking at it, the finer details are not so important- I just want to see firearms that are capable of firing several rounds rapidly and killing large numbers of people kept out of the hands of civilians. I should probably steer clear of the more technical discussions here.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
well I sure hope that if any legislation is made that they care about "semantics".
it's less semantics and more clarification for the purposes of discussion. not sure what the problem is with that.
We're people on a god damned pearl jam message board. Pretty sure a bill would label things correctly. LOL
I know. You're not getting my point.
For those who want to discuss the fine points of gun legislation, the details would be important, for sure. I guess you could say my perspective is more general. From my way of looking at it, the finer details are not so important- I just want to see firearms that are capable of firing several rounds rapidly and killing large numbers of people kept out of the hands of civilians. I should probably steer clear of the more technical discussions here.
I don’t understand that perspective. If you’re passionate and want to see change, and I believe you do, why would you not care about technical discussions. Wouldn’t you want to be informed so when a law does pass you can voice your more educated opinion of why it’s a good or crap law? I mentioned a few times a fixed magazine. I haven’t pointed out that the definition of a fixed magazine is stupid. It’s fixed if it requires a “tool” to remove. A tool could be the point of a pen, or more commonly the tip of a bullet. So they make the button too small for a finger, but the tip of a bullet fits and now it’s considered a fixed magazine, even though it can still be released in about 1.2 seconds. I would think that’s worth knowing for anyone who wants to see new laws. So not only do we need to require fixed magazines, we need to redefine what that is.
I don't care about semantics. I just watched the most heart wrenching video I've ever seen. Amerie Jo Garza's dad was being interviewed by Anderson Cooper. He is a med aid. he arrived at the scene and one little girl he was helping was covered in blood. She said she was ok but they killed her best friend. She told him the name of that best friend. that best friend was his daughter. She was trying to call the police with the phone she got for her birthday two weeks ago.
I'm a fucking blubbering mess. I'm fucking angry. I'm canadian, watching this carnage from a distance, and I'm fucking ANGRY.
I don't care about semantics. I just watched the most heart wrenching video I've ever seen. Amerie Jo Garza's dad was being interviewed by Anderson Cooper. He is a med aid. he arrived at the scene and one little girl he was helping was covered in blood. She said she was ok but they killed her best friend. She told him the name of that best friend. that best friend was his daughter. She was trying to call the police with the phone she got for her birthday two weeks ago.
I'm a fucking blubbering mess. I'm fucking angry. I'm canadian, watching this carnage from a distance, and I'm fucking ANGRY.
oh god that is devastating.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
well I sure hope that if any legislation is made that they care about "semantics".
it's less semantics and more clarification for the purposes of discussion. not sure what the problem is with that.
We're people on a god damned pearl jam message board. Pretty sure a bill would label things correctly. LOL
I know. You're not getting my point.
For those who want to discuss the fine points of gun legislation, the details would be important, for sure. I guess you could say my perspective is more general. From my way of looking at it, the finer details are not so important- I just want to see firearms that are capable of firing several rounds rapidly and killing large numbers of people kept out of the hands of civilians. I should probably steer clear of the more technical discussions here.
I don’t understand that perspective. If you’re passionate and want to see change, and I believe you do, why would you not care about technical discussions. Wouldn’t you want to be informed so when a law does pass you can voice your more educated opinion of why it’s a good or crap law? I mentioned a few times a fixed magazine. I haven’t pointed out that the definition of a fixed magazine is stupid. It’s fixed if it requires a “tool” to remove. A tool could be the point of a pen, or more commonly the tip of a bullet. So they make the button too small for a finger, but the tip of a bullet fits and now it’s considered a fixed magazine, even though it can still be released in about 1.2 seconds. I would think that’s worth knowing for anyone who wants to see new laws. So not only do we need to require fixed magazines, we need to redefine what that is.
I think I was pretty clear about what I'd like to see happen, but I'll say it again:
I want to see firearms that are capable of firing several rounds
rapidly and killing large numbers of people kept out of the hands of
civilians.
I see no reason to add any further technical details to that. You either agree, or not.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
I don't care about semantics. I just watched the most heart wrenching video I've ever seen. Amerie Jo Garza's dad was being interviewed by Anderson Cooper. He is a med aid. he arrived at the scene and one little girl he was helping was covered in blood. She said she was ok but they killed her best friend. She told him the name of that best friend. that best friend was his daughter. She was trying to call the police with the phone she got for her birthday two weeks ago.
I'm a fucking blubbering mess. I'm fucking angry. I'm canadian, watching this carnage from a distance, and I'm fucking ANGRY.
Oh man, I'm supposed to go out soon and I just watched it. Gotta go splash some cold water on my face. That was wrenching. Shit....
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
well I sure hope that if any legislation is made that they care about "semantics".
it's less semantics and more clarification for the purposes of discussion. not sure what the problem is with that.
We're people on a god damned pearl jam message board. Pretty sure a bill would label things correctly. LOL
I know. You're not getting my point.
For those who want to discuss the fine points of gun legislation, the details would be important, for sure. I guess you could say my perspective is more general. From my way of looking at it, the finer details are not so important- I just want to see firearms that are capable of firing several rounds rapidly and killing large numbers of people kept out of the hands of civilians. I should probably steer clear of the more technical discussions here.
I don’t understand that perspective. If you’re passionate and want to see change, and I believe you do, why would you not care about technical discussions. Wouldn’t you want to be informed so when a law does pass you can voice your more educated opinion of why it’s a good or crap law? I mentioned a few times a fixed magazine. I haven’t pointed out that the definition of a fixed magazine is stupid. It’s fixed if it requires a “tool” to remove. A tool could be the point of a pen, or more commonly the tip of a bullet. So they make the button too small for a finger, but the tip of a bullet fits and now it’s considered a fixed magazine, even though it can still be released in about 1.2 seconds. I would think that’s worth knowing for anyone who wants to see new laws. So not only do we need to require fixed magazines, we need to redefine what that is.
I think I was pretty clear about what I'd like to see happen, but I'll say it again:
I want to see firearms that are capable of firing several rounds
rapidly and killing large numbers of people kept out of the hands of
civilians.
I see no reason to add any further technical details to that. You either agree, or not.
Brian, you have to specifically name the model and features of the types of firearms you'd like kept out of Civilian hands. I can't agree with you otherwise. Oh, please also list the manufacturer and part numbers. I just want to make sure that you don't try to limit my rights when trying to ban guns I may want to use when my buddies and I want to have a get together at the range and fire off a few hundred rounds when we celebrate our freedom this July 4th. Thanks!
well I sure hope that if any legislation is made that they care about "semantics".
it's less semantics and more clarification for the purposes of discussion. not sure what the problem is with that.
We're people on a god damned pearl jam message board. Pretty sure a bill would label things correctly. LOL
I know. You're not getting my point.
For those who want to discuss the fine points of gun legislation, the details would be important, for sure. I guess you could say my perspective is more general. From my way of looking at it, the finer details are not so important- I just want to see firearms that are capable of firing several rounds rapidly and killing large numbers of people kept out of the hands of civilians. I should probably steer clear of the more technical discussions here.
I don’t understand that perspective. If you’re passionate and want to see change, and I believe you do, why would you not care about technical discussions. Wouldn’t you want to be informed so when a law does pass you can voice your more educated opinion of why it’s a good or crap law? I mentioned a few times a fixed magazine. I haven’t pointed out that the definition of a fixed magazine is stupid. It’s fixed if it requires a “tool” to remove. A tool could be the point of a pen, or more commonly the tip of a bullet. So they make the button too small for a finger, but the tip of a bullet fits and now it’s considered a fixed magazine, even though it can still be released in about 1.2 seconds. I would think that’s worth knowing for anyone who wants to see new laws. So not only do we need to require fixed magazines, we need to redefine what that is.
I think I was pretty clear about what I'd like to see happen, but I'll say it again:
I want to see firearms that are capable of firing several rounds
rapidly and killing large numbers of people kept out of the hands of
civilians.
I see no reason to add any further technical details to that. You either agree, or not.
Brian, you have to specifically name the model and features of the types of firearms you'd like kept out of Civilian hands. I can't agree with you otherwise. Oh, please also list the manufacturer and part numbers. I just want to make sure that you don't try to limit my rights when trying to ban guns I may want to use when my buddies and I want to have a get together at the range and fire off a few hundred rounds when we celebrate our freedom this July 4th. Thanks!
I don't care about semantics. I just watched the most heart wrenching video I've ever seen. Amerie Jo Garza's dad was being interviewed by Anderson Cooper. He is a med aid. he arrived at the scene and one little girl he was helping was covered in blood. She said she was ok but they killed her best friend. She told him the name of that best friend. that best friend was his daughter. She was trying to call the police with the phone she got for her birthday two weeks ago.
I'm a fucking blubbering mess. I'm fucking angry. I'm canadian, watching this carnage from a distance, and I'm fucking ANGRY.
well I sure hope that if any legislation is made that they care about "semantics".
it's less semantics and more clarification for the purposes of discussion. not sure what the problem is with that.
We're people on a god damned pearl jam message board. Pretty sure a bill would label things correctly. LOL
I know. You're not getting my point.
For those who want to discuss the fine points of gun legislation, the details would be important, for sure. I guess you could say my perspective is more general. From my way of looking at it, the finer details are not so important- I just want to see firearms that are capable of firing several rounds rapidly and killing large numbers of people kept out of the hands of civilians. I should probably steer clear of the more technical discussions here.
I don’t understand that perspective. If you’re passionate and want to see change, and I believe you do, why would you not care about technical discussions. Wouldn’t you want to be informed so when a law does pass you can voice your more educated opinion of why it’s a good or crap law? I mentioned a few times a fixed magazine. I haven’t pointed out that the definition of a fixed magazine is stupid. It’s fixed if it requires a “tool” to remove. A tool could be the point of a pen, or more commonly the tip of a bullet. So they make the button too small for a finger, but the tip of a bullet fits and now it’s considered a fixed magazine, even though it can still be released in about 1.2 seconds. I would think that’s worth knowing for anyone who wants to see new laws. So not only do we need to require fixed magazines, we need to redefine what that is.
I think I was pretty clear about what I'd like to see happen, but I'll say it again:
I want to see firearms that are capable of firing several rounds
rapidly and killing large numbers of people kept out of the hands of
civilians.
I see no reason to add any further technical details to that. You either agree, or not.
Brian, you have to specifically name the model and features of the types of firearms you'd like kept out of Civilian hands. I can't agree with you otherwise. Oh, please also list the manufacturer and part numbers. I just want to make sure that you don't try to limit my rights when trying to ban guns I may want to use when my buddies and I want to have a get together at the range and fire off a few hundred rounds when we celebrate our freedom this July 4th. Thanks!
Your wish is my command!
1. I wanna ban them danged pearly handled Smitty and Winston sixty shooters like they used at that there Ooooh-Kay Koral.
2. Speaking of OK, I definitely wanna ban the O-K 45s 'cuz I just ha-ay-ay-t the number 45!
3. And I definitely want to ban the General Electric Cheney Bigelow Wire Works Hydroar SA Bazooka because those fuckers are basically a hunnert guns in one!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
We keep hearing (and saying) that these shooting are a "sign that America is broken". Here's a perspective that shows how it's not at all broken, that all is going as planned:
Shootings aren’t a sign America is ‘broken’. It’s working exactly as intended
Ryan Busse
I
was a firearms exec for years. The industry used to adhere to
self-imposed rules and norms – until gun makers and lobby groups like
the NRA realized fear and extremism sold more guns
After the horrific mass murders in Buffalo and
Uvalde, Americans are hearing a familiar chorus emanating from the cable
networks. Every host and guest seems shocked. They search for the right
words.
Eventually, their message becomes almost universal: Something
is horribly broken in a country that allows troubled young men to arm
themselves to the teeth and kill innocent people – especially young
children. Social media explodes, expressing a version of the shock that the first lady, Jill Biden, expressed after the murders in Uvalde – “Stunned. Angry. Heartbroken.”
I
too am angry and heartbroken. But I am not stunned, and I don’t believe
anything is broken. The truth is that Americans now live within an
escalating system of radicalized gun tragedy that is working exactly as
expected.
I know. For more than two decades, I worked in
the highest levels of the firearms industry. I spent my career working
to hold on to the principles of responsible gun ownership and fighting
against the very predictable results of increasing extremism and the
pursuit of profit above all else.
I wrote my book Gunfight
about the truth of what the industry has become and about my life
fighting it from the inside. Today I’m a senior adviser to the gun
violence prevention group founded by former congresswoman Gabby Giffords
– not a career path I thought I’d have when I first started out in the
firearms industry, but one that felt very necessary to me given what I
experienced.
For the first few years of my
career, which started in 1995, the industry adhered to self-imposed
rules and norms – such as restricting tactical gear like that worn by
the Buffalo and Uvalde shooters to the law enforcement and military
sections of trade shows. Even up until about 15 years ago, self-imposed
policies like this were strictly enforced by the industry’s own trade
association, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF). Industry
norms prohibited displaying tactical gear, certain marketing campaigns
or incendiary firearms names, for fear of what might spread throughout
the country.
But as the increasing vitriol of the National
Rifle Association (NRA) proved politically effective, some in the gun
business realized this messaging could be adopted by the firearms
industry to sell more guns. All that was required for success was a
dedication to frighteningly dangerous rhetoric and increasingly powerful
weaponry. Cultural norms and responsibility would have to go.
The
extreme risks and likely outcomes of such an experiment seemed obvious
to me and to others. I refused to join the growing tactical market and
worked to weaken the NRA behind the scenes. And I wasn’t the only one.
A number of other people in the industry sounded their own alarms about the impacts of “terrorist rifles”
and a nation with unlimited gun sales and insufficient responsibility.
Those warnings resulted in the quick and very public loss of careers at the hands of the NRA and its growing radicalized troll army.
Everyone
else got the message. Speaking up for responsibility was not to be
tolerated. Unpleasantries like radicalized young men with too many guns
were to be treated like diffuse pollution that could be dealt with by
someone downstream. Even when unspeakable tragedies, such as the murders
at Sandy Hook, were linked directly to shockingly irresponsible
marketing campaigns that promised a metaphorical “man card” to any young man who purchased an AR-15, the NSSF opted to look the other way.
For years, the NSSF worked behind the scenes to
criticize and marginalize people like me who spoke up. Today the
organization openly attacks anyone who speaks out in support of gun
safety. But it has nothing to say about Kyle Rittenhouse or armed men
menacing the Michigan capital. So far there is silence from the NSSF and
the NRA on the 10 Black Americans murdered in Buffalo and the 19
children and two teachers murdered in Uvalde.
The
NSSF helped craft a new world of gun lobby extremism in which profits
are all that matter. With the election of America’s first Black
president, the lobby embraced conspiracy-mongering, racism and fear
campaigns. Gun sales soared from less than 8m guns in 2008 to more than 16m in 2016.
In
2016, the firearms industry was all-in on Donald Trump and even piped
his 2017 American Carnage inauguration speech throughout the industry
trade show like a religious ceremony. The industry celebrated because
Trump was the perfect salesman for more guns. This system was simply
being pushed to its next stage.
This Friday, Trump is scheduled to speak at the
annual NRA convention in Houston – less than 300 miles from Uvalde. The
convention hall will be full of NSSF industry members lining up to court
Trump and his frenzied fans. The system continues to work just as it
was designed by the NRA and NSSF; from their point of view, nothing
about it is broken.
There is a reason why
troubled 18-year-olds can buy assault rifles, body armor and
high-capacity magazines. There is a reason why racism, conspiracies and
increasingly dangerous idolatry infect parts of our country, and federal
gun legislation has stalled time and time again. It’s the gun lobby –
the NRA, the NSSF and the politicians who are frightened of them.
The
horrific murders of second- and third-graders are part of that system.
It’s time to rebuild it. We can all be safer from gun violence if we’re
willing to stand up to the gun lobby and the politicians who champion
their dangerous extremism in pursuit of profits.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Ban assault rifles. Fuck the semantics. Jesus christ.
I’m going to be that guy here, sorry…
Civilians don’t own Assault Rifles. This is part of the semantics and wording you’ll get into unfortunately.
Say ‘ban assault “type” weapons and their similar characteristics’ and you will get no hem and haw.
I completely understand what you mean when you said it but like someone else said there will be a merry go round about specifics but like I said, I understand what you mean and that should be understood.
EDIT......jesus christ...another semantic response! I didn't even notice at first. Thanks for clarifying what you mean Tempo. I hear you. The whole thing is just so annoying to me.
Yeah man, I wasn’t being a jerk about it, just pointing out that I understand what you mean.
The assault weapons ban was ending during a time where social media was just ramping up. We did have columbine during that ban too. MO besides a gun that keeps coming up? People getting picked on and or mental problems.
I’m not going to argue that the gun didn’t come into the equation but damn man there are other things going on that we need to look into…
And again....mental problems and people getting picked on are not isolated in the USA. Just the gun part.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
I don't care about semantics. I just watched the most heart wrenching video I've ever seen. Amerie Jo Garza's dad was being interviewed by Anderson Cooper. He is a med aid. he arrived at the scene and one little girl he was helping was covered in blood. She said she was ok but they killed her best friend. She told him the name of that best friend. that best friend was his daughter. She was trying to call the police with the phone she got for her birthday two weeks ago.
I'm a fucking blubbering mess. I'm fucking angry. I'm canadian, watching this carnage from a distance, and I'm fucking ANGRY.
that is so awful...reminds me of the Sandy Hook video where the parents were waiting on their kids to show up and the crowd gets smaller and smaller. I can't imagine the horror
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Comments
Major kudos, cblock. You are amazing, thank you!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Assault_Weapons_Ban
EDIT.--sorry man. I misinterpreted your response.
https://community.pearljam.com/discussion/234036/americas-gun-violence
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
The assault weapons ban was ending during a time where social media was just ramping up.
We did have columbine during that ban too.
MO besides a gun that keeps coming up? People getting picked on and or mental problems.
I’m not going to argue that the gun didn’t come into the equation but damn man there are other things going on that we need to look into…
it's less semantics and more clarification for the purposes of discussion. not sure what the problem is with that.
www.headstonesband.com
There are crazy and depressed people everywhere. The difference between here and everywhere else is.....we all know what the difference is. No need to get the semantics wrong again. haha
www.headstonesband.com
Banning broad categories or types will be less effective. Ban the features that make them capable of mass casualties. Ban detached magazines of more than 5 rounds, or require them to be fixed altogether. You won’t have a mass casualty situation like we did yesterday with an AR15 with a fixed magazine of 5 rounds, even if it is an AR15.
But ban weapons based on a category or group, manufacturers and owners will just find a way to modify it so it fits into a new category.
I really don’t know why several seem to be getting defensive taking about those “semantics.” If a social media thread dedicated to a gun control discussion isn’t the place, then I guess there’s zero hope anyone working together on a solution. But people should really listen when gun owners offer suggestions, we know what people are going to do to work around the law.
For those who want to discuss the fine points of gun legislation, the details would be important, for sure.
I guess you could say my perspective is more general. From my way of looking at it, the finer details are not so important- I just want to see firearms that are capable of firing several rounds rapidly and killing large numbers of people kept out of the hands of civilians.
I should probably steer clear of the more technical discussions here.
I mentioned a few times a fixed magazine. I haven’t pointed out that the definition of a fixed magazine is stupid. It’s fixed if it requires a “tool” to remove. A tool could be the point of a pen, or more commonly the tip of a bullet. So they make the button too small for a finger, but the tip of a bullet fits and now it’s considered a fixed magazine, even though it can still be released in about 1.2 seconds. I would think that’s worth knowing for anyone who wants to see new laws.
So not only do we need to require fixed magazines, we need to redefine what that is.
I'm a fucking blubbering mess. I'm fucking angry. I'm canadian, watching this carnage from a distance, and I'm fucking ANGRY.
www.headstonesband.com
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Oh man, I'm supposed to go out soon and I just watched it. Gotta go splash some cold water on my face. That was wrenching. Shit....
ISO 2016 Greenville shirt. Size medium. PM me if you have one for sale/trade.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Shootings aren’t a sign America is ‘broken’. It’s working exactly as intended
I was a firearms exec for years. The industry used to adhere to self-imposed rules and norms – until gun makers and lobby groups like the NRA realized fear and extremism sold more guns
After the horrific mass murders in Buffalo and Uvalde, Americans are hearing a familiar chorus emanating from the cable networks. Every host and guest seems shocked. They search for the right words.
Eventually, their message becomes almost universal: Something is horribly broken in a country that allows troubled young men to arm themselves to the teeth and kill innocent people – especially young children. Social media explodes, expressing a version of the shock that the first lady, Jill Biden, expressed after the murders in Uvalde – “Stunned. Angry. Heartbroken.”
I too am angry and heartbroken. But I am not stunned, and I don’t believe anything is broken. The truth is that Americans now live within an escalating system of radicalized gun tragedy that is working exactly as expected.
I know. For more than two decades, I worked in the highest levels of the firearms industry. I spent my career working to hold on to the principles of responsible gun ownership and fighting against the very predictable results of increasing extremism and the pursuit of profit above all else.
I wrote my book Gunfight about the truth of what the industry has become and about my life fighting it from the inside. Today I’m a senior adviser to the gun violence prevention group founded by former congresswoman Gabby Giffords – not a career path I thought I’d have when I first started out in the firearms industry, but one that felt very necessary to me given what I experienced.
For the first few years of my career, which started in 1995, the industry adhered to self-imposed rules and norms – such as restricting tactical gear like that worn by the Buffalo and Uvalde shooters to the law enforcement and military sections of trade shows. Even up until about 15 years ago, self-imposed policies like this were strictly enforced by the industry’s own trade association, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF). Industry norms prohibited displaying tactical gear, certain marketing campaigns or incendiary firearms names, for fear of what might spread throughout the country.
But as the increasing vitriol of the National Rifle Association (NRA) proved politically effective, some in the gun business realized this messaging could be adopted by the firearms industry to sell more guns. All that was required for success was a dedication to frighteningly dangerous rhetoric and increasingly powerful weaponry. Cultural norms and responsibility would have to go.
The extreme risks and likely outcomes of such an experiment seemed obvious to me and to others. I refused to join the growing tactical market and worked to weaken the NRA behind the scenes. And I wasn’t the only one.
A number of other people in the industry sounded their own alarms about the impacts of “terrorist rifles” and a nation with unlimited gun sales and insufficient responsibility. Those warnings resulted in the quick and very public loss of careers at the hands of the NRA and its growing radicalized troll army.
Everyone else got the message. Speaking up for responsibility was not to be tolerated. Unpleasantries like radicalized young men with too many guns were to be treated like diffuse pollution that could be dealt with by someone downstream. Even when unspeakable tragedies, such as the murders at Sandy Hook, were linked directly to shockingly irresponsible marketing campaigns that promised a metaphorical “man card” to any young man who purchased an AR-15, the NSSF opted to look the other way.
For years, the NSSF worked behind the scenes to criticize and marginalize people like me who spoke up. Today the organization openly attacks anyone who speaks out in support of gun safety. But it has nothing to say about Kyle Rittenhouse or armed men menacing the Michigan capital. So far there is silence from the NSSF and the NRA on the 10 Black Americans murdered in Buffalo and the 19 children and two teachers murdered in Uvalde.
The NSSF helped craft a new world of gun lobby extremism in which profits are all that matter. With the election of America’s first Black president, the lobby embraced conspiracy-mongering, racism and fear campaigns. Gun sales soared from less than 8m guns in 2008 to more than 16m in 2016.
In 2016, the firearms industry was all-in on Donald Trump and even piped his 2017 American Carnage inauguration speech throughout the industry trade show like a religious ceremony. The industry celebrated because Trump was the perfect salesman for more guns. This system was simply being pushed to its next stage.
This Friday, Trump is scheduled to speak at the annual NRA convention in Houston – less than 300 miles from Uvalde. The convention hall will be full of NSSF industry members lining up to court Trump and his frenzied fans. The system continues to work just as it was designed by the NRA and NSSF; from their point of view, nothing about it is broken.
There is a reason why troubled 18-year-olds can buy assault rifles, body armor and high-capacity magazines. There is a reason why racism, conspiracies and increasingly dangerous idolatry infect parts of our country, and federal gun legislation has stalled time and time again. It’s the gun lobby – the NRA, the NSSF and the politicians who are frightened of them.
The horrific murders of second- and third-graders are part of that system. It’s time to rebuild it. We can all be safer from gun violence if we’re willing to stand up to the gun lobby and the politicians who champion their dangerous extremism in pursuit of profits.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana