America's Gun Violence

josevolution said:

PJPOWER said:

Degeneratefk said:

PJPOWER said:

josevolution said:

PJPOWER said:

josevolution said:

PJPOWER said:

I'm all for profiling, if someone looks batshit crazy or acts out of sorts then keep them in sight. If someone has ties or communications with known terrorists or organizations or are on a no fly list then a big red alert box should pop up on those instant background checks to let the seller know that is the case. Let's add known violent gang affiliation databases and start tracking that info as well. Better border securities that prevent the flow of illegal drugs and firearms.
Let's try that a few years. If the government abuses that authority, then we can push for a repeal. I still do not see any logical or realistic way of getting "assault rifles" out of the hands of civilians due to modern technology, but I think it's a good idea for people to have access and knowledge of who they are selling to in order to make informed decisions. Blocking access to those databases does seem pretty crazy. Hell, let's make that public access so we all know if we are living next to a suspected terrorist. Follow through with harsh punishments for violent offenders
I do not support "mental health databases" or whatever is being pushed in that realm, not that I think people with mental health problems should be buying guns, but because it could potentially turn those that really need help away and seems like a major violation of privacy.
I am adamantly apposed to any confiscation programs as it would essentially start a civil war. If you are okay with a police state then that is your prerogative. Buyback programs have been largely unsuccessful.
The problem is that there is no way of 100% stopping such an intigrated and culturally diverse society from experiencing problems with sociopathic individuals. You can personally start helping society by being realistic and aware of your surroundings. You do not have to live in fear, but know exits and what not when you go into places. Know some basic survival skills for if you are put in one of these situations. You do not have to wait on the politicians to enact laws to start doing those things!

Admirable coming from you , I bet none of the above you mention ever gets put in place why let's see if you can tell me why ? It's easy just three letters you know the letters I'm talking about ...

That and any time a bill gets brought up there are about 100 things that try and get sneaked in for either political reasons or to please constituents. Nothing is ever simple and straightforward.

What are the letters I'm talking about its easy let me help you , NRA they are more powerful than the POTUS , congress, senate ...nothing will ever get done with them in charge !

Not to mention a little notion of being innocent until proven guilty. If rights start being taken away because someone is "presumed" or "assumed", then I'm thinking there is a 99% chance "suspected" terrorists will gain back their ability to purchase firearms after one or two lawsuits make those weak laws disappear for good. My question is "What are you doing to help". Posting on a Pearl Jam forum isn't exactly helping. It has been broadcast several times how a trained individual saved lives in Orlando because he had knowledge of situational awareness. There are free workshops all the time related to workplace safety, survival skills, etc. I have attended and participated in countless. That does not give me a 100% chance of surviving something like happened in Orlando, but it sure as hell raises those odds. It starts on a personal level. Maybe some sort of situational awareness class should be a mandatory part of high school curriculum...that stands the potential of decreasing rapes, human trafficking, workplace violence, terrorist attacks. Most people don't even know how to properly apply a tourniquet...that's pathetic. Personal responsibility or lack there of has most definitely, undeniably been a factor in almost all of these situations. In Orlando, it took 3 hours for SWAT to enter the building. What would you have done during those three hours? Sheep or sheepdog?

Personal accountability of who? The victims? The cops? How much killing was actually done after the initial 15 minutes? Hostage situations typically last much longer than 3 hours. What were they doing? Figuring out a plan that would kill the least amount of people. You can't just come up with that in 20 minutes.

You misunderstood my question. If you were inside with the asshole, what would you do in those 3 hours? Do you know some of the breathing techniques to calm your heart rate so that you can think clearly under pressure or how to apply a simply tourniquet if needed? There are free classes out there that teach these things, just like there are CPR classes... Knowledge of these things would be helpful in so many situations outside of just an event like this.

While you make it sound plausible , it's absurd that I'd have to be trained in survival skills to go out dancing with my wife ! Doesn't it make more sense to make it harder for people to get the weapons ? Maybe just maybe pass some laws to get this done ...

To me it sounds absurd that you would not want to know to look for an exit if that place you go dancing at happened to catch fire or if you come across someone with a hemorrhaging wound, or someone choking. Is it absurd to know CPR?

dudeman said:

pjhawks said:

by the logic of the people who think it's ok to sell assault rifles i ask again why not sell tanks, hand grenades and hell why not surface to air missiles? by the logic of "it's the owners and not the weapon's fault for mass killings" why is ANY weapon not available for purchase?. I'm curious to hear the logic here.

and as i stated above i am in no way anti-gun. i think some should and have to be kept legal. just not those assault rifles.

Statistically speaking, "assault rifles" are used in a very low number of crimes. More people are killed with bare hands and feet in the US annually.

That's why, I feel, some gun rights supporters think that banning "assault rifles" would affect more law-abiding citizens negatively while having little to no reduction in violent crime.

"Assault rifles" aren't the problem. Handguns are used in the majority of gun deaths and the majority of those are suicides.

Take care of the people and they will kill themselves and each other less often.

Exactly. I've said that before. Assault rifles account for less than 1% of gun deaths, but get 99% of the attention. Its such a small part of the problem, its like saying stopping those darn Estonians from moving here will solve immigration.
More people die from peanut allergies than assault rifles.
So lets ban hands, feet and peanuts!

mace1229 said:

dudeman said:

pjhawks said:

by the logic of the people who think it's ok to sell assault rifles i ask again why not sell tanks, hand grenades and hell why not surface to air missiles? by the logic of "it's the owners and not the weapon's fault for mass killings" why is ANY weapon not available for purchase?. I'm curious to hear the logic here.

and as i stated above i am in no way anti-gun. i think some should and have to be kept legal. just not those assault rifles.

Statistically speaking, "assault rifles" are used in a very low number of crimes. More people are killed with bare hands and feet in the US annually.

That's why, I feel, some gun rights supporters think that banning "assault rifles" would affect more law-abiding citizens negatively while having little to no reduction in violent crime.

"Assault rifles" aren't the problem. Handguns are used in the majority of gun deaths and the majority of those are suicides.

Take care of the people and they will kill themselves and each other less often.

Exactly. I've said that before. Assault rifles account for less than 1% of gun deaths, but get 99% of the attention. Its such a small part of the problem, its like saying stopping those darn Estonians from moving here will solve immigration.
More people die from peanut allergies than assault rifles.
So lets ban hands, feet and peanuts!

well then maybe should ban handguns then huh?

pjhawks said:

mace1229 said:

dudeman said:

pjhawks said:

by the logic of the people who think it's ok to sell assault rifles i ask again why not sell tanks, hand grenades and hell why not surface to air missiles? by the logic of "it's the owners and not the weapon's fault for mass killings" why is ANY weapon not available for purchase?. I'm curious to hear the logic here.

and as i stated above i am in no way anti-gun. i think some should and have to be kept legal. just not those assault rifles.

Statistically speaking, "assault rifles" are used in a very low number of crimes. More people are killed with bare hands and feet in the US annually.

That's why, I feel, some gun rights supporters think that banning "assault rifles" would affect more law-abiding citizens negatively while having little to no reduction in violent crime.

"Assault rifles" aren't the problem. Handguns are used in the majority of gun deaths and the majority of those are suicides.

Take care of the people and they will kill themselves and each other less often.

Exactly. I've said that before. Assault rifles account for less than 1% of gun deaths, but get 99% of the attention. Its such a small part of the problem, its like saying stopping those darn Estonians from moving here will solve immigration.
More people die from peanut allergies than assault rifles.
So lets ban hands, feet and peanuts!

well then maybe should ban handguns then huh?

Not a ban on guns, but look at where most of the crime is occurring.
30,000 + gun deaths per year. More than half are suicides. A small percentage are accidents and self defense. That leaves roughly 8,000 (depending on the year) homicides. Who commits the vast majority of these homicides? Most are late teens/early 20's involved in gangs or other criminal activity with illegally owned and carried handguns. And yes to the previous comment, assault weapons are much higher count per incident, and you named Sandy Hook, Colorado, etc, but that doesn't change the fact that its typically less than 1% of gun deaths are still due to assault rifles.
Crack down on gangs, stiffen penalties for illegal carrying will make an exponentially bigger difference that destroying every assault rifle ever made.
Look at Chicago. You make the police afraid to do their job and homicides have tripled, and almost none are assault rifles. What would the opposite effect have? Imagine if this administration supported the police instead of backing the criminals, increased the amount of police activity in high crime areas, support the police instead of throwing them under the bus, and crime will drop, including gun deaths, like it did in NYC.

I do own guns, but I am for gun control, background checks, etc, and I agree there's no need for large capacity magazines. But all that does nothing if we done address the 99% of the problem.

mace1229 said:

dudeman said:

pjhawks said:

by the logic of the people who think it's ok to sell assault rifles i ask again why not sell tanks, hand grenades and hell why not surface to air missiles? by the logic of "it's the owners and not the weapon's fault for mass killings" why is ANY weapon not available for purchase?. I'm curious to hear the logic here.

and as i stated above i am in no way anti-gun. i think some should and have to be kept legal. just not those assault rifles.

Statistically speaking, "assault rifles" are used in a very low number of crimes. More people are killed with bare hands and feet in the US annually.

That's why, I feel, some gun rights supporters think that banning "assault rifles" would affect more law-abiding citizens negatively while having little to no reduction in violent crime.

"Assault rifles" aren't the problem. Handguns are used in the majority of gun deaths and the majority of those are suicides.

Take care of the people and they will kill themselves and each other less often.

Exactly. I've said that before. Assault rifles account for less than 1% of gun deaths, but get 99% of the attention. Its such a small part of the problem, its like saying stopping those darn Estonians from moving here will solve immigration.
More people die from peanut allergies than assault rifles.
So lets ban hands, feet and peanuts!

Then keep your assault rifles and we will start banning glocks.

Bentleyspop said:

TL170678 said:

Several people called the FBI on this guy...America does not have a gun problem, it has a government problem, and the problem is they let attacks happen to get agendas pushed....

https://gma.yahoo.com/orlando-shooter-turned-away-different-gun-store-being-141628142--abc-news-topstories.html

Are you Adam Jones?

Yes I play guitar for Tool

Godfather. said:

Degeneratefk said:

mace1229 said:

dudeman said:

pjhawks said:

by the logic of the people who think it's ok to sell assault rifles i ask again why not sell tanks, hand grenades and hell why not surface to air missiles? by the logic of "it's the owners and not the weapon's fault for mass killings" why is ANY weapon not available for purchase?. I'm curious to hear the logic here.

and as i stated above i am in no way anti-gun. i think some should and have to be kept legal. just not those assault rifles.

Statistically speaking, "assault rifles" are used in a very low number of crimes. More people are killed with bare hands and feet in the US annually.

That's why, I feel, some gun rights supporters think that banning "assault rifles" would affect more law-abiding citizens negatively while having little to no reduction in violent crime.

"Assault rifles" aren't the problem. Handguns are used in the majority of gun deaths and the majority of those are suicides.

Take care of the people and they will kill themselves and each other less often.

Exactly. I've said that before. Assault rifles account for less than 1% of gun deaths, but get 99% of the attention. Its such a small part of the problem, its like saying stopping those darn Estonians from moving here will solve immigration.
More people die from peanut allergies than assault rifles.
So lets ban hands, feet and peanuts!

Then keep your assault rifles and we will start banning glocks.

banning Glocks ?????? hahahahahhah your joking right ?

Godfather.

If you can't see the sarcasm in that post, then we shouldn't be talking to each other.

I'll just let Penn and Teller explain what I am always explaining about the 2nd. They spell it out better!
https://youtu.be/P4zE0K22zH8

josevolution said:

PJPOWER said:

I'll just let Penn and Teller explain what I am always explaining about the 2nd. They spell it out better!
https://youtu.be/P4zE0K22zH8

Do you think that when the Document was written they took into account the development of the muskets these shooters use today in these massacres ...

I don't think that made a damn difference. In fact, they probably meant that the people should be just as armed as the government...but I cannot say I fully advocate that. I feel that there are enough armed people to create a pretty big problem if there was ever a tyrannical government though, and I do not see that as a bad thing.

Degeneratefk said:

PJPOWER said:

josevolution said:

PJPOWER said:

I'll just let Penn and Teller explain what I am always explaining about the 2nd. They spell it out better!
https://youtu.be/P4zE0K22zH8

Do you think that when the Document was written they took into account the development of the muskets these shooters use today in these massacres ...

I don't think that made a damn difference. In fact, they probably meant that the people should be just as armed as the government...but I cannot say I fully advocate that. I feel that there are enough armed people to create a pretty big problem if there was ever a tyrannical government though, and I do not see that as a bad thing.

I think it makes all the difference. When that document was written, the most powerful weapon known to man was a musket. It took 3-5 minutes to reload 1 shot. If you were a marksman.

Exactly, that's the most powerful thing that the tyrannical government had as well. It was more about giving people a fighting chance if tyranny surfaced again.