America's Gun Violence #2

tempo_n_groove

brianlux said:

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:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/may/25/shootings-arent-a-sign-america-is-broken-its-working-exactly-as-intended

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.

mickeyrat said:

posted after Buffalo

https://youtu.be/dBuFeSz9AnI

These two articles were fascinating.  When I say "nutters" I am talking about the people these articles are talking about.

I used to compete in IDPA contests and win.  I went to the range 5 times a week.  I really enjoyed shooting as a hobby or sport.  I stopped reading all the gun magazines in 2010 or so.  I was never a tactical guy but it was pretty heavily advertised and at ranges you would see people with "tact out" rifles.  It was just becoming a thing when I was easing out of it.

For the last 12 years or so people on these boards and elsewhere were talking about a "gun culture".  What the hell does that mean?  I didn't understand.  I had guns, I shot for fun and that was that.

What I wasn't doing is going online and the message boards and reading the magazines to see what was new and what others were talking about.  To me my mind was still 2010 and these "man card" adds were not a thing yet.

So after reading and seeing that video I get what people meant now.  It used to not be like this.  I agree w the video and prohibition/banning isn't the answer.  Changing the culture is, but how does a group that is all in change that view now?

mace1229

tbergs said:

brianlux said:

mace1229 said:

brianlux said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

The Juggler said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

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!

Cool. This is why nothing changes though. People offer real solutions and you just make fun of their input, congrats on being part of the problem.
No one expected Brian to name anything. Just adding to the discussion of what should be done. But this is the result when the “other side” joins the conversation, so they rarely do.

Gern Blansten

I saw an interesting exchange on Chris Hayes' show last night. The segment was about the gun lobby and gun manufacturers.

Basically the gun industry knows that once people buy a gun (pistol, rifle, shotgun, etc.....I won't list every possible model so please don't argue with me about the definition of pistol, rifle, shotgun) they tend to stop purchasing. In order to keep people buying they push these conspiracy theories that the guvmint is going to take your guns, that you need guns to defend yourself from lawless mobs, the guvmint, neighbors with bigger guns, etc., in an attempt to get you to buy more guns.  It is a very small percentage of the gun owning population that goes overboard with multiple guns and fantasies about defending their property from tyranny, etc.

I thought it was a good argument. I have a rifle that my dad gave to me. It's just a .22 but I don't hunt so there is no need for me to have another. I bought a handgun about 22 years ago that is still like new. I wouldn't mind having a shotgun for protection but I'm not sure if I will ever buy one.

That isn't to say that all gun purchasers are repeat buyers. I know that recent stats show that most activity the last few years have been new gun owners. I just thought the angle was interesting.

Gern Blansten

These were my neighbors until about six months ago when they moved. Strange that they felt this would make a nice family photo. The two boys clearly are not comfortable holding those guns....kind of an awkward pose.  Oh....and check out the white power symbol flash....am I overthinking that???

I've mentioned them before on here. They had a sign in their backyard near their dock that says "This property protected by the 2A"....like lake pirates were going to storm their property or something.

Interesting note....the young girl (now she is 17-18) is currently in our local jail for theft. She has been there for about a month awaiting trial because she didn't show up for her initial hearing.  Great family.

Gern Blansten

tempo_n_groove said:

brianlux said:

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:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/may/25/shootings-arent-a-sign-america-is-broken-its-working-exactly-as-intended

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.

mickeyrat said:

posted after Buffalo

https://youtu.be/dBuFeSz9AnI

These two articles were fascinating.  When I say "nutters" I am talking about the people these articles are talking about.

I used to compete in IDPA contests and win.  I went to the range 5 times a week.  I really enjoyed shooting as a hobby or sport.  I stopped reading all the gun magazines in 2010 or so.  I was never a tactical guy but it was pretty heavily advertised and at ranges you would see people with "tact out" rifles.  It was just becoming a thing when I was easing out of it.

For the last 12 years or so people on these boards and elsewhere were talking about a "gun culture".  What the hell does that mean?  I didn't understand.  I had guns, I shot for fun and that was that.

What I wasn't doing is going online and the message boards and reading the magazines to see what was new and what others were talking about.  To me my mind was still 2010 and these "man card" adds were not a thing yet.

So after reading and seeing that video I get what people meant now.  It used to not be like this.  I agree w the video and prohibition/banning isn't the answer.  Changing the culture is, but how does a group that is all in change that view now?

I agree that it didn't used to be like this at all. And the most dangerous people are the ones that likely don't have a family history of gun ownership. Responsible ownership is just out the fucking window.

My wife posted a memory from her FB yesterday because of that four year anniversary of a school shooting in our city. One of her FB "friends" posted about how this TX shooting was a set up to get more gun control.  Who the fuck actually thinks that? And who is stupid enough to post it?

tempo_n_groove

Gern Blansten said:

I saw an interesting exchange on Chris Hayes' show last night. The segment was about the gun lobby and gun manufacturers.

Basically the gun industry knows that once people buy a gun (pistol, rifle, shotgun, etc.....I won't list every possible model so please don't argue with me about the definition of pistol, rifle, shotgun) they tend to stop purchasing. In order to keep people buying they push these conspiracy theories that the guvmint is going to take your guns, that you need guns to defend yourself from lawless mobs, the guvmint, neighbors with bigger guns, etc., in an attempt to get you to buy more guns.  It is a very small percentage of the gun owning population that goes overboard with multiple guns and fantasies about defending their property from tyranny, etc.

I thought it was a good argument. I have a rifle that my dad gave to me. It's just a .22 but I don't hunt so there is no need for me to have another. I bought a handgun about 22 years ago that is still like new. I wouldn't mind having a shotgun for protection but I'm not sure if I will ever buy one.

That isn't to say that all gun purchasers are repeat buyers. I know that recent stats show that most activity the last few years have been new gun owners. I just thought the angle was interesting.

I purchased multiple guns because I liked them, plain and simple.  Home defense was the shotgun.  Everything else was to have fun and plink around with.  I bought a pistol w interchangeable barrels so I could shoot in different competitions and not have to buy multiple guns and save money.

Every time the President was a democrat though you would hear the same argument that they will ban something so people ran out and bought more guns.  

I don't think that the world will go to shit and I'll have to fend off people but it's a piece of mind that I do have some means.

Just a reminder of everyone that wants to "ban" certain guns, that is a way for the gubmint to take them away from you.

Poncier

Bentleyspop said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

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. 

https://twitter.com/kaitlancollins/status/1529617687894274048?t=3tHX3qzkkm4Vf2tMjsU5KQ&s=19

They should sit every member of Congress down and force them to watch this and any other similar interviews with families, then ask them on the record if they will consider any new gun control legislation.
And the ones that say no hopefully at least some percentage of them would never get re-elected.
I just can't imagine being one of these parents. How anyone could watch that and not think we need to change things is mind boggling.

Gern Blansten

tempo_n_groove said:

Gern Blansten said:

I saw an interesting exchange on Chris Hayes' show last night. The segment was about the gun lobby and gun manufacturers.

Basically the gun industry knows that once people buy a gun (pistol, rifle, shotgun, etc.....I won't list every possible model so please don't argue with me about the definition of pistol, rifle, shotgun) they tend to stop purchasing. In order to keep people buying they push these conspiracy theories that the guvmint is going to take your guns, that you need guns to defend yourself from lawless mobs, the guvmint, neighbors with bigger guns, etc., in an attempt to get you to buy more guns.  It is a very small percentage of the gun owning population that goes overboard with multiple guns and fantasies about defending their property from tyranny, etc.

I thought it was a good argument. I have a rifle that my dad gave to me. It's just a .22 but I don't hunt so there is no need for me to have another. I bought a handgun about 22 years ago that is still like new. I wouldn't mind having a shotgun for protection but I'm not sure if I will ever buy one.

That isn't to say that all gun purchasers are repeat buyers. I know that recent stats show that most activity the last few years have been new gun owners. I just thought the angle was interesting.

I purchased multiple guns because I liked them, plain and simple.  Home defense was the shotgun.  Everything else was to have fun and plink around with.  I bought a pistol w interchangeable barrels so I could shoot in different competitions and not have to buy multiple guns and save money.

Every time the President was a democrat though you would hear the same argument that they will ban something so people ran out and bought more guns.  

I don't think that the world will go to shit and I'll have to fend off people but it's a piece of mind that I do have some means.

Just a reminder of everyone that wants to "ban" certain guns, that is a way for the gubmint to take them away from you.

Yeah the competition stuff makes sense. And I don't mean to suggest that everyone with multiple guns is a nutjob....definitely not the case.

And I'm good with the gubmint taking guns but I don't think that will happen.

Making it as hard as possible for messed up 18 year olds to get these weapons should be the priority. Anti gun law people will say that a criminal will get the gun no matter what but this nutjob at least had to wait until he was 18. What if that age were 21? What if that purchase required licensing and training? Or clearance with the local police...which I think should absolutely be the case.

When I got my lifetime permit in Indiana several years ago I had to submit fingerprints for an FBI screening. I'm not sure if they still do that or not but my guess is they do not.

Poncier

Gern Blansten said:

These were my neighbors until about six months ago when they moved. Strange that they felt this would make a nice family photo. The two boys clearly are not comfortable holding those guns....kind of an awkward pose.  Oh....and check out the white power symbol flash....am I overthinking that???

I've mentioned them before on here. They had a sign in their backyard near their dock that says "This property protected by the 2A"....like lake pirates were going to storm their property or something.

Interesting note....the young girl (now she is 17-18) is currently in our local jail for theft. She has been there for about a month awaiting trial because she didn't show up for her initial hearing.  Great family.

Definitely not overthinking. That is not a natural pose for your non gun-toting hand, that is clearly intentional.

I assume the dog's name must have been Winchester or Remington or similar.

Gern Blansten

Poncier said:

Gern Blansten said:

These were my neighbors until about six months ago when they moved. Strange that they felt this would make a nice family photo. The two boys clearly are not comfortable holding those guns....kind of an awkward pose.  Oh....and check out the white power symbol flash....am I overthinking that???

I've mentioned them before on here. They had a sign in their backyard near their dock that says "This property protected by the 2A"....like lake pirates were going to storm their property or something.

Interesting note....the young girl (now she is 17-18) is currently in our local jail for theft. She has been there for about a month awaiting trial because she didn't show up for her initial hearing.  Great family.

Definitely not overthinking. That is not a natural pose for your non gun-toting hand, that is clearly intentional.

I assume the dog's name must have been Winchester or Remington or similar.

lol...no idea but you're probably right. They lived diagonally from us for 6-7 years and I never met them once. I would wave to them if I passed them but I can't say they ever waved back. Strange people.

bootlegger10

That is out of the bag on guns in this country.  If someone wants it badly enough there are enough out there to acquire.  Especially when people buy 10+ of them when they only have two hands. 

With that said, if we can pass legislation to make it more difficult to acquire guns (especially automatic weapons however defined) and it prevents one mass shooting then it will be worth it. 

Gern Blansten

https://twitter.com/VoteRandyFine/status/1529427654839046144?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1529427654839046144%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.pearljam.com%2Fdiscussion%2F287214%2Fgop%2Fp83

g under p

After these school shooting disasters the silence from the GOP is by far too deafening.

✌️

JojoRice

They interviewed the coroner in Uvalde.  He said most of the kids bodies were so unrecognizable because of all the carnage and they had to use dna testing to identify the kids.  Can't imagine having to walk into that classroom and see that scene. 

tbergs

mace1229 said:

tbergs said:

brianlux said:

mace1229 said:

brianlux said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

The Juggler said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

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!

Cool. This is why nothing changes though. People offer real solutions and you just make fun of their input, congrats on being part of the problem.
No one expected Brian to name anything. Just adding to the discussion of what should be done. But this is the result when the “other side” joins the conversation, so they rarely do.

Oh boy, if this isn't rich. Look, I'm sure you're sincere in your approach here, but let's drop the BS that this is why nothing happens or this is the result when the other side joins the conversation. If the other side, and by that I mean the less than 20% of this country who value guns and the archaic meaning of 2A more than the life of innocent people, gave a shit, then they would at least be demanding universal background checks and waiting periods for all gun purchases under any circumstance because they want to end the stigma of what it means to own guns in this country. You can float this self righteous crap all you want, but the truth of the matter is that gun rights advocates want to continue to blame all the mass shootings and any shootings on "mental illness" and criminals. They like to use catch phrases and deflect, but once a few weeks have passed they go back to doing nothing about either mental illness or gun control and people keep voting for their dumbasses because, you know, the other side is going to take all your guns away. I wonder if any of you (figuratively speaking) would ever change your mind if it was your child lying in a pool of blood in their 3rd grade classroom or your child talking about how they saw their best friend gunned down. Hopefully it never comes to that because no one should ever have to suffer that trauma.

I'll keep waiting on that NRA funded GOP senator or congress person to reach across the aisle and introduce any new legislation to help prevent gun violence...

tbergs

JojoRice said:

They interviewed the coroner in Uvalde.  He said most of the kids bodies were so unrecognizable because of all the carnage and they had to use dna testing to identify the kids.  Can't imagine having to walk into that classroom and see that scene. 

Pretty sure if I was that coroner, that would be my last day on the job and I'd be finding the bottom of a bottle for the next few months. The trauma just extrapolates so far beyond just the families. It's horrific to think about.

Bentleyspop

American exceptionalism....

https://twitter.com/malonebarry/status/1529784584996630528?t=6Gqh5jK62Cm-0aUnJWtgLQ&s=19

The Juggler

JojoRice said:

I live in Kennesaw, GA and we have a law that requires every homeowner to have a gun. Granted it's not enforced. 

You gotta move

Merkin Baller

tbergs said:

mace1229 said:

tbergs said:

brianlux said:

mace1229 said:

brianlux said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

The Juggler said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

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!

Cool. This is why nothing changes though. People offer real solutions and you just make fun of their input, congrats on being part of the problem.
No one expected Brian to name anything. Just adding to the discussion of what should be done. But this is the result when the “other side” joins the conversation, so they rarely do.

Oh boy, if this isn't rich. Look, I'm sure you're sincere in your approach here, but let's drop the BS that this is why nothing happens or this is the result when the other side joins the conversation. If the other side, and by that I mean the less than 20% of this country who value guns and the archaic meaning of 2A more than the life of innocent people, gave a shit, then they would at least be demanding universal background checks and waiting periods for all gun purchases under any circumstance because they want to end the stigma of what it means to own guns in this country. You can float this self righteous crap all you want, but the truth of the matter is that gun rights advocates want to continue to blame all the mass shootings and any shootings on "mental illness" and criminals. They like to use catch phrases and deflect, but once a few weeks have passed they go back to doing nothing about either mental illness or gun control and people keep voting for their dumbasses because, you know, the other side is going to take all your guns away. I wonder if any of you (figuratively speaking) would ever change your mind if it was your child lying in a pool of blood in their 3rd grade classroom or your child talking about how they saw their best friend gunned down. Hopefully it never comes to that because no one should ever have to suffer that trauma.

I'll keep waiting on that NRA funded GOP senator or congress person to reach across the aisle and introduce any new legislation to help prevent gun violence...

Agreed.

If the pro gun crowd was sincere about fixing gun violence in America, they wouldn't be sitting around waiting for the anti-gun crowd to get their terminology straight. 

tbergs

Bentleyspop said:

American exceptionalism....

https://twitter.com/malonebarry/status/1529784584996630528?t=6Gqh5jK62Cm-0aUnJWtgLQ&s=19

Fucker can't answer a question and deflects. The new norm is if you bring up any change to gun laws, it's political. No, that's called common sense you dick wad. These hypocrites can all go to hell.

The Juggler

Gern Blansten said:

These were my neighbors until about six months ago when they moved. Strange that they felt this would make a nice family photo. The two boys clearly are not comfortable holding those guns....kind of an awkward pose.  Oh....and check out the white power symbol flash....am I overthinking that???

I've mentioned them before on here. They had a sign in their backyard near their dock that says "This property protected by the 2A"....like lake pirates were going to storm their property or something.

Interesting note....the young girl (now she is 17-18) is currently in our local jail for theft. She has been there for about a month awaiting trial because she didn't show up for her initial hearing.  Great family.

Crazy, gun toting, white supremacist's aside, you're neighborhood looks pretty awesome. 

Halifax2TheMax

tbergs said:

mace1229 said:

tbergs said:

brianlux said:

mace1229 said:

brianlux said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

The Juggler said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

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!

Cool. This is why nothing changes though. People offer real solutions and you just make fun of their input, congrats on being part of the problem.
No one expected Brian to name anything. Just adding to the discussion of what should be done. But this is the result when the “other side” joins the conversation, so they rarely do.

Oh boy, if this isn't rich. Look, I'm sure you're sincere in your approach here, but let's drop the BS that this is why nothing happens or this is the result when the other side joins the conversation. If the other side, and by that I mean the less than 20% of this country who value guns and the archaic meaning of 2A more than the life of innocent people, gave a shit, then they would at least be demanding universal background checks and waiting periods for all gun purchases under any circumstance because they want to end the stigma of what it means to own guns in this country. You can float this self righteous crap all you want, but the truth of the matter is that gun rights advocates want to continue to blame all the mass shootings and any shootings on "mental illness" and criminals. They like to use catch phrases and deflect, but once a few weeks have passed they go back to doing nothing about either mental illness or gun control and people keep voting for their dumbasses because, you know, the other side is going to take all your guns away. I wonder if any of you (figuratively speaking) would ever change your mind if it was your child lying in a pool of blood in their 3rd grade classroom or your child talking about how they saw their best friend gunned down. Hopefully it never comes to that because no one should ever have to suffer that trauma.

I'll keep waiting on that NRA funded GOP senator or congress person to reach across the aisle and introduce any new legislation to help prevent gun violence...

Or vote on HB8. Go ahead, pick apart HB8 for the “semantics.” And once us reasonable gun safety advocates learn the vernacular and can discuss firearms at their level of superior intellectual knowledge, they’ll claim, “see, now your advocating for a ban and that’s a slippery slope to gubmint seizing all guns from law abiding citizens.” Now pass me my clip.

Lerxst1992

tbergs said:

mace1229 said:

tbergs said:

brianlux said:

mace1229 said:

brianlux said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

The Juggler said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

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!

Cool. This is why nothing changes though. People offer real solutions and you just make fun of their input, congrats on being part of the problem.
No one expected Brian to name anything. Just adding to the discussion of what should be done. But this is the result when the “other side” joins the conversation, so they rarely do.

Oh boy, if this isn't rich. Look, I'm sure you're sincere in your approach here, but let's drop the BS that this is why nothing happens or this is the result when the other side joins the conversation. If the other side, and by that I mean the less than 20% of this country who value guns and the archaic meaning of 2A more than the life of innocent people, gave a shit, then they would at least be demanding universal background checks and waiting periods for all gun purchases under any circumstance because they want to end the stigma of what it means to own guns in this country. You can float this self righteous crap all you want, but the truth of the matter is that gun rights advocates want to continue to blame all the mass shootings and any shootings on "mental illness" and criminals. They like to use catch phrases and deflect, but once a few weeks have passed they go back to doing nothing about either mental illness or gun control and people keep voting for their dumbasses because, you know, the other side is going to take all your guns away. I wonder if any of you (figuratively speaking) would ever change your mind if it was your child lying in a pool of blood in their 3rd grade classroom or your child talking about how they saw their best friend gunned down. Hopefully it never comes to that because no one should ever have to suffer that trauma.

I'll keep waiting on that NRA funded GOP senator or congress person to reach across the aisle and introduce any new legislation to help prevent gun violence...

This is exactly why democrats are lost and will lose again. They need to stop talking to Republican senators and reps and start talking to the American people. Republicans will do nothing about these repeated deaths and complaining about their inaction is a waste of time. Make that case to voters right now, not in September when everyone forgets this tragedy.

”this November, if you want to do something about these needless deaths, vote for democrats. If you don’t, this will continue.”

cblock4life

tbergs said:

mace1229 said:

tbergs said:

brianlux said:

mace1229 said:

brianlux said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

The Juggler said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

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!

Cool. This is why nothing changes though. People offer real solutions and you just make fun of their input, congrats on being part of the problem.
No one expected Brian to name anything. Just adding to the discussion of what should be done. But this is the result when the “other side” joins the conversation, so they rarely do.

Oh boy, if this isn't rich. Look, I'm sure you're sincere in your approach here, but let's drop the BS that this is why nothing happens or this is the result when the other side joins the conversation. If the other side, and by that I mean the less than 20% of this country who value guns and the archaic meaning of 2A more than the life of innocent people, gave a shit, then they would at least be demanding universal background checks and waiting periods for all gun purchases under any circumstance because they want to end the stigma of what it means to own guns in this country. You can float this self righteous crap all you want, but the truth of the matter is that gun rights advocates want to continue to blame all the mass shootings and any shootings on "mental illness" and criminals. They like to use catch phrases and deflect, but once a few weeks have passed they go back to doing nothing about either mental illness or gun control and people keep voting for their dumbasses because, you know, the other side is going to take all your guns away. I wonder if any of you (figuratively speaking) would ever change your mind if it was your child lying in a pool of blood in their 3rd grade classroom or your child talking about how they saw their best friend gunned down. Hopefully it never comes to that because no one should ever have to suffer that trauma.

I'll keep waiting on that NRA funded GOP senator or congress person to reach across the aisle and introduce any new legislation to help prevent gun violence...

Damn straight it would matter.  Not only would it matter but they’d lead the crusade against guns.  

You are absolutely correct in your responses above and I seriously can’t tell you in words how much I appreciate them.  This semantics issue is just the latest bullshit in a whole list of excuses for justifying that they care more about their guns then children’s lives.  

Poncier

Bentleyspop said:

American exceptionalism....

https://twitter.com/malonebarry/status/1529784584996630528?t=6Gqh5jK62Cm-0aUnJWtgLQ&s=19

My lord what a douche Cruz is.

cblock4life

Poncier said:

Bentleyspop said:

American exceptionalism....

https://twitter.com/malonebarry/status/1529784584996630528?t=6Gqh5jK62Cm-0aUnJWtgLQ&s=19

My lord what a douche Cruz is.

Any man who still supports a pos that spoke harshly about his wife’s physical features should have his testicles crushed by said wife.  

Halifax2TheMax

cblock4life said:

tbergs said:

mace1229 said:

tbergs said:

brianlux said:

mace1229 said:

brianlux said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

The Juggler said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

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!

Cool. This is why nothing changes though. People offer real solutions and you just make fun of their input, congrats on being part of the problem.
No one expected Brian to name anything. Just adding to the discussion of what should be done. But this is the result when the “other side” joins the conversation, so they rarely do.

Oh boy, if this isn't rich. Look, I'm sure you're sincere in your approach here, but let's drop the BS that this is why nothing happens or this is the result when the other side joins the conversation. If the other side, and by that I mean the less than 20% of this country who value guns and the archaic meaning of 2A more than the life of innocent people, gave a shit, then they would at least be demanding universal background checks and waiting periods for all gun purchases under any circumstance because they want to end the stigma of what it means to own guns in this country. You can float this self righteous crap all you want, but the truth of the matter is that gun rights advocates want to continue to blame all the mass shootings and any shootings on "mental illness" and criminals. They like to use catch phrases and deflect, but once a few weeks have passed they go back to doing nothing about either mental illness or gun control and people keep voting for their dumbasses because, you know, the other side is going to take all your guns away. I wonder if any of you (figuratively speaking) would ever change your mind if it was your child lying in a pool of blood in their 3rd grade classroom or your child talking about how they saw their best friend gunned down. Hopefully it never comes to that because no one should ever have to suffer that trauma.

I'll keep waiting on that NRA funded GOP senator or congress person to reach across the aisle and introduce any new legislation to help prevent gun violence...

Damn straight it would matter.  Not only would it matter but they’d lead the crusade against guns.  

You are absolutely correct in your responses above and I seriously can’t tell you in words how much I appreciate them.  This semantics issue is just the latest bullshit in a whole list of excuses for justifying that they care more about their guns then children’s lives.  

I tend to believe that if it happened to them, they’d claim it was god’s will and that their child is a martyr for 2A and is with Jesus and his AR.

The Juggler

Poncier said:

Bentleyspop said:

American exceptionalism....

https://twitter.com/malonebarry/status/1529784584996630528?t=6Gqh5jK62Cm-0aUnJWtgLQ&s=19

My lord what a douche Cruz is.

Kudos to those journalists for exposing him. It is easy to do when you simply don't let them bloviate on and on. The media in our country could learn a thing or two from them. 

Hobbes

I recommend watching "Moment of Silence," episode two of The Premise, an anthology series created by BJ Novak on Hulu.

HughFreakingDillon

if you want change, you have to know what change it is you want. 

some of you keep hammering on the "semantics" issue. Sure, it's disingenuous from most on the gun toting side. I don't see it that way from mace. But I guess it's easier to pile on then to have an honest dialogue.