America's Gun Violence

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

It wasn't a deliberately defiant practice... it was lack of knowledge.

Another responsible gun owner! Maybe some sort of mandatory gun safety training would be appropriate?

That was the era. The 70s wasn't noted for awareness.

Anyways... it's nice to see you untucked your tail from between your legs and resurfaced after embarrassing yourself decrying racial bias in the Dallas mass murder.

I don't normally troll.  But when I do, it's in the Gun Violence thread.

/got a lot of bites on that one

mace1229 said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

It wasn't a deliberately defiant practice... it was lack of knowledge.

Another responsible gun owner! Maybe some sort of mandatory gun safety training would be appropriate?

Although I wouldn't be completely opposed to that, that also sums up what many see as the problem with gun control.
It doesn't resolve anything.
Most gun deaths are suicide, gun safety won't prevent that.
Most violent crimes committed with a gun, the gun was obtained illegally. Gun safety won't solve that either.
And then there's the big debate on assault rifles, magazine limits, a forward stock etc, that does nothing to prevent it either.

Gun control should focus on mental health and cracking down on the laws that already exist. If we could help the mentally ill, and keep guns out of the hands of criminal, that would solve 95% (yes, that is a made-up stat, my point is it would solve the vast majority) of gun deaths. But we ignore the mental health, and if you crack down on gangs then you're racist nowadays. 
So unfortunately that is never the case, politicians make their careers by banning weapons that aren't used in crimes, making focusing on gun policy that doesn't address the real problems with guns and talking big about the NRA.

PJPOWER said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

PJPOWER said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

PJPOWER said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

PJPOWER said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mcgruff10 said:

HAlifax: I have no problem with silencers since they suppress the decibels not silence them. When you shoot with one it is still loud.
armor piercing bullets: I don't even know what that means. Is that based on caliber or grains?  I am not versed in that area so I don't have an opinion. Armor piercing sounds like a buzz word simikiar to "hollow point".

Guess your neighborhood doesn't employ gun fire detection devices? Do some research on armor piercing. Body armor not uparmored humvees or vehicle armor. Go on YouTube and watch the California bank robbery shoot out to get a sense of the potential violence unleashed. You okay with that?

Something with metro California and Chicago...just cannot place my finger on it...Pretty sure all of the hunters in TX would have helped the cops in that robbery situation.  Police departments are now better equiped to deal with those situations now too, like Robocop, lol
No gunfire detection devices around here, but there are a lot of bird hunters here, so there is that.

You mean like they did at the biker shoot out? Or when that whack job went hunting for cops? Yea, police departments now need armored vehicles to respond to that because you know, a black president might get elected and come for your guns, LOL.

You've gone off the deep end.  I don't remember the incidents that you discussed involving body armor as we were talking about...and what does a black president getting elected and "coming for your guns" have anything to do with anything except you trying to squeeze racism into this discussion?  My comment was really about how hunters are able to use better bullets for large/dangerous game that would have dropped these armored thugs fairly quickly.  
Didn't the police have to go to a local gun store to get a gun to take down the robbers?  I remember the situation, just not all that well.

How have I gone off the deep end? Please explain. The legislation before congress, on hold since the congressional baseball shooting, legalizes armor piercing bullets. In the bank robbery case and the Texas cop killing frenzy, that capability would have made a horrific situation even worse. Yet you claim it's necessay to take out dangerous game animals? Sure. The pro gun proponents such as yourself constantly point to more guns being the solution, that if everyone were armed, mass shootings wouldn't occur as frequently. Someone on here posted how all the armed hunters would have taken out the bank robbers, the baseball field assailant and I pointed out that the mass shootings perpetrated by the biker gang and the cop killer were not stopped in such a manner. All we heard from the NRA is how Dems will take your guns away, especially Obama because well, he's special or black. I can only imagine if that biker shoot out had been perpetrated by BLM or Nation of Islam gatherers. The Dallas cop killer initially shot from a position that muffled the sound and made it extremely difficult for responding officers to determine the direction of gun fire. Imagine if he had a "silencer?" Sorry these points are lost on you.

Yeah, more assuming.  The silencer would have actually made it easier to have found the Dallas shooter as it still puts out a pretty auditable sound, just not a deafening one.  But without one, you have to deal with sound echoing and bouncing off all of the surrounding concrete buildings.
As for "armor piercing bullets", most rifle caliber standard hunting rounds will easily penetrate body armor, so limiting "armor piercing rounds" just sounds like a buzzword/dishonest way of trying to limit all ammo.  There are some pretty well educated hunters around here that know a hell of a lot more about ballistics, so you may want to leave some of these technicalities for them to explain.  You are simply wrong on so many fronts.  You are starting to sound like that Colorado "ghost gun guy" trying to push legislation on something that you don't know shit about.  You seem well versed and more interested in racism, so why not stick to the threads where that is actually actively being discussed instead of trolling here?

So why make armor piercing bullets legal? And what am I "assuming?" I guess Only hunters can possibly know anything about guns and associated hardware and legislation, potential or otherwise, or have an opinion? Ignorance is bliss I guess? What is actively being discussed in this thread? I thought it was America's Gun Violence. Sorry that I mistook it for the Only Hunters are Educated About Guns thread. Race factors into everything. Sorry I triggered you. What am I wrong about on so many fronts? Please correct me.

Others have pointed out why you are wrong on so many fronts.  Have you actually read the legislation having to do with "armor piercing rounds"?  Totally buzzword bullshit. I'm just saying that you probably shouldn't assume that being pro-gun rights automatically makes someone racist, right leaning, or even republican for that matter.  Everything is not always due to the "oh, but we had a black president" bullshit.  That legislation would have been fought regardless of the skin color of the president.  Some of you are getting ridiculously predictable.  No offense to Godfather, but you have become the Godfather of the left.  This thread is about gun violence, but you may want to read the context of the comments before just jumping in and spewing nonsense...I really think that you are just pissed that people are allowed to hunt or shoot guns at all...sorry...must be frustrating...

CM189191 said:

mace1229 said:

CM189191 said:

mace1229 said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

It wasn't a deliberately defiant practice... it was lack of knowledge.

Another responsible gun owner! Maybe some sort of mandatory gun safety training would be appropriate?

Although I wouldn't be completely opposed to that, that also sums up what many see as the problem with gun control.
It doesn't resolve anything.
Most gun deaths are suicide, gun safety won't prevent that.
Most violent crimes committed with a gun, the gun was obtained illegally. Gun safety won't solve that either.
And then there's the big debate on assault rifles, magazine limits, a forward stock etc, that does nothing to prevent it either.

Gun control should focus on mental health and cracking down on the laws that already exist. If we could help the mentally ill, and keep guns out of the hands of criminal, that would solve 95% (yes, that is a made-up stat, my point is it would solve the vast majority) of gun deaths. But we ignore the mental health, and if you crack down on gangs then you're racist nowadays. 
So unfortunately that is never the case, politicians make their careers by banning weapons that aren't used in crimes, making focusing on gun policy that doesn't address the real problems with guns and talking big about the NRA.

Why not both?  If 60% of gun deaths are suicides, that doesn't mean we ignore the other 40%.

Why isn't the gun lobby promoting mental health care to help solve the problem?  Instead they're focusing on defeating laws that would restrict firearm ownership to the mentally unstable.  

Yes, but the "other" isn't 40%. The "other" is really closer to 5-10%
And by other, I am referring to non-suicides or crimes with legally owned guns. Essentially illegally owned guns and suicides make up far more than half gun crimes.
Its hard to find an exact figure, but based on the definition used most sources will claim somewhere between like 50-95% of violent gun crimes are with illegal guns. The range is so big because of the definition of "illegally owned." If you go strictly by a gun that was purchased on the black market or other illegal means, then it is closer to the 50%. If you go with anyone who should not even be in possession of a firearm because of a felony conviction or any other reason, then it jumps to 90-95%. That latter definition makes more sense, because it was illegally possessed.
So solving the illegal gun market and mental health will solve 95% of the gun problem. So why is it than nearly none of the gun legislature will focus on it? That's why anti-gun lobbyist are sometimes viewed as caring more about their anti-gun image than actually solving anything.
That's why it seems pointless to introduce more gun legislature, because if we just focused on the gun laws we already have there would be a dramatic decrease. And since 90% of gun crimes are with illegal guns, new gun legislature won;t have an impact on those committing the crimes.

Its like being on the Titanic and trying to fix a leaky gasket on rudder arm and completely ignoring the gaping hole that will sink the ship in 90 minutes.

Go Beavers said:

I'd say 90% of the problem is easy access to guns and the related proliferation of guns. More guns in the US = more dead people. 

mace1229 said:

CM189191 said:

mace1229 said:

CM189191 said:

mace1229 said:

CM189191 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

It wasn't a deliberately defiant practice... it was lack of knowledge.

Another responsible gun owner! Maybe some sort of mandatory gun safety training would be appropriate?

Although I wouldn't be completely opposed to that, that also sums up what many see as the problem with gun control.
It doesn't resolve anything.
Most gun deaths are suicide, gun safety won't prevent that.
Most violent crimes committed with a gun, the gun was obtained illegally. Gun safety won't solve that either.
And then there's the big debate on assault rifles, magazine limits, a forward stock etc, that does nothing to prevent it either.

Gun control should focus on mental health and cracking down on the laws that already exist. If we could help the mentally ill, and keep guns out of the hands of criminal, that would solve 95% (yes, that is a made-up stat, my point is it would solve the vast majority) of gun deaths. But we ignore the mental health, and if you crack down on gangs then you're racist nowadays. 
So unfortunately that is never the case, politicians make their careers by banning weapons that aren't used in crimes, making focusing on gun policy that doesn't address the real problems with guns and talking big about the NRA.

Why not both?  If 60% of gun deaths are suicides, that doesn't mean we ignore the other 40%.

Why isn't the gun lobby promoting mental health care to help solve the problem?  Instead they're focusing on defeating laws that would restrict firearm ownership to the mentally unstable.  

Yes, but the "other" isn't 40%. The "other" is really closer to 5-10%
And by other, I am referring to non-suicides or crimes with legally owned guns. Essentially illegally owned guns and suicides make up far more than half gun crimes.
Its hard to find an exact figure, but based on the definition used most sources will claim somewhere between like 50-95% of violent gun crimes are with illegal guns. The range is so big because of the definition of "illegally owned." If you go strictly by a gun that was purchased on the black market or other illegal means, then it is closer to the 50%. If you go with anyone who should not even be in possession of a firearm because of a felony conviction or any other reason, then it jumps to 90-95%. That latter definition makes more sense, because it was illegally possessed.
So solving the illegal gun market and mental health will solve 95% of the gun problem. So why is it than nearly none of the gun legislature will focus on it? That's why anti-gun lobbyist are sometimes viewed as caring more about their anti-gun image than actually solving anything.
That's why it seems pointless to introduce more gun legislature, because if we just focused on the gun laws we already have there would be a dramatic decrease. And since 90% of gun crimes are with illegal guns, new gun legislature won;t have an impact on those committing the crimes.

Its like being on the Titanic and trying to fix a leaky gasket on rudder arm and completely ignoring the gaping hole that will sink the ship in 90 minutes.

not what I said. I've rephrased it about 3 times now and it keeps getting ignored, or some irrelevant meme posted instead.
Why do the majority of anti-gun lobbyists and law makers focus on laws that impact only 5-10% of the problem, and ignore the 90% ?

No where did I state it can't be solved. But it wont be solved by focusing on the wrong issues and ignore mental illness, gangs and other criminals with guns.

So are you going to rephrase what I said and twist it into something I didn't say, post another meme, or respond to my point?

As I said, suicides make up about half of gun deaths. Criminals make up most of the other half. Why do gun laws focus on assault rifles (which is about 1%) and high capacity mags far more than anything else?
I'm not necessarily against some restrictions on those. I just also believe they are meaningless if you don't impact the bigger problem. We used to be good an helping those with mental illness, but not anymore. Better programs for that first. Violent offenders and known gang affiliates should lose some rights, stop and search should be allowed for anyone flying gang colors. That is one images I had when I said gang crackdown will lead to racial criticism. But in my view, if you chose to join a violent gang and chose to advertise it, then that is the choice you made. I dont give a crap fif you get stopped 100 times on the way to the grocery store.