America's Gun Violence
Comments
-
This guy bought his weapon in 2016. Of course only a wizard could have passed a law in 2015 that would have prevented him from getting such a weapon.PJPOWER said:
Surely there is a wizard out there that can make bad people and guns disappear...maybe we should call him?dignin said:
I guess if that's how you get your kicks.PJPOWER said:
Oh, you forgot “troll on an online “mostly” liberal forum” But after that...nothing can be done.dignin said:
Take CPR and know your exits.unsung said:There will always be gun owners. Now what?
There will always be bad people. Now what?
And remember to say "thoughts AND prayers".
There is absolutely nothing else that can be done.
Nothing to be done...unless of course, you're a wizard, because of course only a wizard can pass common sense laws.0 -
0
-
Yes, but for every Gandalf there is a Saruman so it wouldn't matter. Middle earth would never survive until Frodo Sessions destroyed the one true gun.dignin said:
This guy bought his weapon in 2016. Of course only a wizard could have passed a law in 2015 that would have prevented him from getting such a weapon.PJPOWER said:
Surely there is a wizard out there that can make bad people and guns disappear...maybe we should call him?dignin said:
I guess if that's how you get your kicks.PJPOWER said:
Oh, you forgot “troll on an online “mostly” liberal forum” But after that...nothing can be done.dignin said:
Take CPR and know your exits.unsung said:There will always be gun owners. Now what?
There will always be bad people. Now what?
And remember to say "thoughts AND prayers".
There is absolutely nothing else that can be done.
Nothing to be done...unless of course, you're a wizard, because of course only a wizard can pass common sense laws.It's a hopeless situation...0 -
https://www.blurmerica.com/single-post/2017/03/01/Frodo-Baggins-And-Samwise-Gamgee-Journey-To-Earth-To-Bring-Jeff-Sessions-Back-To-Middle-Earthtbergs said:
Yes, but for every Gandalf there is a Saruman so it wouldn't matter. Middle earth would never survive until Frodo Sessions destroyed the one true gun.dignin said:
This guy bought his weapon in 2016. Of course only a wizard could have passed a law in 2015 that would have prevented him from getting such a weapon.PJPOWER said:
Surely there is a wizard out there that can make bad people and guns disappear...maybe we should call him?dignin said:
I guess if that's how you get your kicks.PJPOWER said:
Oh, you forgot “troll on an online “mostly” liberal forum” But after that...nothing can be done.dignin said:
Take CPR and know your exits.unsung said:There will always be gun owners. Now what?
There will always be bad people. Now what?
And remember to say "thoughts AND prayers".
There is absolutely nothing else that can be done.
Nothing to be done...unless of course, you're a wizard, because of course only a wizard can pass common sense laws.
0 -
Yeah, I'm going to have to disagree with your statement. Pretty sure over 2 dozen Texans got "fucked", but hey they got him in the end....a victory for gun owners everywhere.PJPOWER said:It's a hopeless situation...0 -
This is purely coincidence.Bentleyspop said:Aurora: AR-15
Orlando: AR-15
Las Vegas: AR-15
Sandy Hook: AR-15
Umpqua CC: AR-15
San Bernardino: AR-15
Sutherland Springs: AR-15
The weapon of choice very easily could have been broad rubber bands too. Ban them?
"My brain's a good brain!"0 -
Actually, my gun of choice is:Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
This is purely coincidence.Bentleyspop said:Aurora: AR-15
Orlando: AR-15
Las Vegas: AR-15
Sandy Hook: AR-15
Umpqua CC: AR-15
San Bernardino: AR-15
Sutherland Springs: AR-15
The weapon of choice very easily could have been broad rubber bands too. Ban them?
So handy and easy to use. I can go through 100 rounds in a few minutes.
It's a hopeless situation...0 -
0 -
I'm opposed to it, so yes.tbergs said:
Well, one state made it illegal to own a bump stock with your pretty AR killing device.Halifax2TheMax said:
Nothing can be done.Bentleyspop said:
Is there anybody on here opposed to the ban of owning AR-15 style assault rifles outside of LE and military?0 -
I don't like banning guns by name. If an AR-15 gets banned, how long do you think the smallest insignificant feature is changed and comes out with a completely different name?tbergs said:
Well, one state made it illegal to own a bump stock with your pretty AR killing device.Halifax2TheMax said:
Nothing can be done.Bentleyspop said:
Is there anybody on here opposed to the ban of owning AR-15 style assault rifles outside of LE and military?
Instead, ban the features that make an AR-15 more deadly than a typical hunting rifle.. And also in practice, what about the thousands already out there? A buyback program is going to be very expensive (yes, Australia did it, but I don't think there were nearly as many). Not to mention all the pushback that wouldn't get anything passed.
The laws are so poorly written than many of them are easily avoided. I would have no problem with someone owning an AR-15 that had a truly fixed magazine of 5 rounds. I say "truly fixed" because a "fixed" magazine is defined by law as a magazine requiring a tool to remove. So many are made with a button too small for a finger that requirs a pointy object to eject. The tip of a bullet works just fine. Or even better, a cover over the ejection button with said small object attached to it, which completely makes the fixed magazine law useless and outdated.
Magazine limits should be good enough for anyone who wants to hunt with one, and works fine for the collector who just wants to target shoot.
Give owners 1 year to comply with getting modifications done to assault rifles.0 -
someone say weapon of choice?!Thirty Bills Unpaid said:
This is purely coincidence.Bentleyspop said:Aurora: AR-15
Orlando: AR-15
Las Vegas: AR-15
Sandy Hook: AR-15
Umpqua CC: AR-15
San Bernardino: AR-15
Sutherland Springs: AR-15
The weapon of choice very easily could have been broad rubber bands too. Ban them?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQ7z57qrZU8
0 -
unsung I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
Yes.tbergs said:
Well, one state made it illegal to own a bump stock with your pretty AR killing device.Halifax2TheMax said:
Nothing can be done.Bentleyspop said:
Is there anybody on here opposed to the ban of owning AR-15 style assault rifles outside of LE and military?
You can't even get the terminology correct.
Besides I have been hearing non-stop for a year how "literally Hitler" was elected President, and now those people want "literally Hitler" to be the one in control of all firearms.
Why do you want to give "literally Hitler" oh and the white supremacist and racist and apparently woman abusing and Russian colluder so much control?0 -
we have said it. however, you should hold them to the same standard. "my thoughts are prayers are with you....but I like guns, so I'm going to do zero about it, and I hope the government also does zero about it.....because....2nd amendment".mace1229 said:
I see a lot of people why aren't religious use that phrase. That's why I compared it to saying something like "I'm sorry for your loss."HughFreakingDillon said:
I disagree with that comparison. maybe if the person saying it at the funeral was philosophically complicit in the person's death, then yes, that would be an applicable comparison. as gambs said, it's because many of those saying it, it is a hallow sentiment, especially when they oppose changes that MAY help to curb these deaths.mace1229 said:
I could agree that there is a difference in that.HughFreakingDillon said:
no, because in addition to their thoughts and prayers, they advocate for real change.mace1229 said:
So you think equally low of Hilary and Obama when they use that phrase? Because, they, and probably every other democratic in office, have as well.rgambs said:
It is an empty and meaningless gesture that makes people feel absolved of the obligation to actually do something that has an effect on the real world.mace1229 said:I didn't understand after the Vegas shooting and still don't understand after this one. What is wrong with saying your "thoughts and prayers" are with the victims?
Even the anti-gun liberals use that phrase.
No one has ever said thoughts and prayers will solve everything or bring the dead back, and this forum is acting like that what every gun owners has said. I just don't get the attack on people using that phrase, especially since he's been said by pretty much everyone on both sides of the gun debate.
In a case like this, where the people who were killed were actively worshipping and praying at their time of death, it rings extra hollow. Frankly, it's insulting to the intelligence and dignity of the human race.
I just think its a cheap shot to only criticize the phrase "thoughts and prayers." Its like calling someone out for saying "I'm sorry for your loss" at a funeral. Just doesn't make sense to me to make fun of those for saying it.
How many people do you think who say "our thoughts and prayers are with you" actually go home and pray about it?
Its just a saying that a lot of people, including non-believers, use in an attempt to comfort others. I see absolutely nothing wrong with it, and it just seems low to me to make fun of anyone for using it. If the beef is with lack of gun laws, then say it, don't do it in a round-about way by making fun of someone for saying their thoughts are with those who just lost loved ones.
in essence, to me, that says "I don't give a fuck about your loved ones".Your boos mean nothing to me, for I have seen what makes you cheer0 -
Would you have preferred he got away and went to the next church? I’m glad this asshat got to experience the pain that he had inflicted on others.tbergs said:
Yeah, I'm going to have to disagree with your statement. Pretty sure over 2 dozen Texans got "fucked", but hey they got him in the end....a victory for gun owners everywhere.PJPOWER said:0 -
California did something like this.mace1229 said:
I don't like banning guns by name. If an AR-15 gets banned, how long do you think the smallest insignificant feature is changed and comes out with a completely different name?tbergs said:
Well, one state made it illegal to own a bump stock with your pretty AR killing device.Halifax2TheMax said:
Nothing can be done.Bentleyspop said:
Is there anybody on here opposed to the ban of owning AR-15 style assault rifles outside of LE and military?
Instead, ban the features that make an AR-15 more deadly than a typical hunting rifle.. And also in practice, what about the thousands already out there? A buyback program is going to be very expensive (yes, Australia did it, but I don't think there were nearly as many). Not to mention all the pushback that wouldn't get anything passed.
The laws are so poorly written than many of them are easily avoided. I would have no problem with someone owning an AR-15 that had a truly fixed magazine of 5 rounds. I say "truly fixed" because a "fixed" magazine is defined by law as a magazine requiring a tool to remove. So many are made with a button too small for a finger that requirs a pointy object to eject. The tip of a bullet works just fine. Or even better, a cover over the ejection button with said small object attached to it, which completely makes the fixed magazine law useless and outdated.
Magazine limits should be good enough for anyone who wants to hunt with one, and works fine for the collector who just wants to target shoot.
Give owners 1 year to comply with getting modifications done to assault rifles.
Basically any "military style" weapon was included in the bill. I believe that was in the late 80's early 90's?
You have to grandfather all the existing ones though.0 -
Yeah, I was living in CA at the time, until a year years ago.tempo_n_groove said:
California did something like this.mace1229 said:
I don't like banning guns by name. If an AR-15 gets banned, how long do you think the smallest insignificant feature is changed and comes out with a completely different name?tbergs said:
Well, one state made it illegal to own a bump stock with your pretty AR killing device.Halifax2TheMax said:
Nothing can be done.Bentleyspop said:
Is there anybody on here opposed to the ban of owning AR-15 style assault rifles outside of LE and military?
Instead, ban the features that make an AR-15 more deadly than a typical hunting rifle.. And also in practice, what about the thousands already out there? A buyback program is going to be very expensive (yes, Australia did it, but I don't think there were nearly as many). Not to mention all the pushback that wouldn't get anything passed.
The laws are so poorly written than many of them are easily avoided. I would have no problem with someone owning an AR-15 that had a truly fixed magazine of 5 rounds. I say "truly fixed" because a "fixed" magazine is defined by law as a magazine requiring a tool to remove. So many are made with a button too small for a finger that requirs a pointy object to eject. The tip of a bullet works just fine. Or even better, a cover over the ejection button with said small object attached to it, which completely makes the fixed magazine law useless and outdated.
Magazine limits should be good enough for anyone who wants to hunt with one, and works fine for the collector who just wants to target shoot.
Give owners 1 year to comply with getting modifications done to assault rifles.
Basically any "military style" weapon was included in the bill. I believe that was in the late 80's early 90's?
You have to grandfather all the existing ones though.
From what I remember they banned some by name, and then created a list of banned features. One of those features was the detatchable magazine that was incredibly easy to go around legally.
But all one had to do to get a banned-by-name gun was find a knock-of under a different name.0 -
Yeah, I know that an AR is like a lego, so banning it in name is pointless, but what I am getting at in general is a weapon like it that allows for high volume round disbursement in a matter of minutes. If that makes it too complicated and impossible to pass then I like the idea of limiting magazine size and a restricting release lever. Of course the concern again comes back to how long before someone finds a work around and creates something similar to a bump stock that allows it to be used unlawfully. That's where the policies and laws need to be in place for all firearms to only be allowed to fire at the rate and capacity they were manufactured for. Start with limiting the capacities and restricting the firing rate so no add-ons or do it yourself shit.mace1229 said:
I don't like banning guns by name. If an AR-15 gets banned, how long do you think the smallest insignificant feature is changed and comes out with a completely different name?tbergs said:
Well, one state made it illegal to own a bump stock with your pretty AR killing device.Halifax2TheMax said:
Nothing can be done.Bentleyspop said:
Is there anybody on here opposed to the ban of owning AR-15 style assault rifles outside of LE and military?
Instead, ban the features that make an AR-15 more deadly than a typical hunting rifle.. And also in practice, what about the thousands already out there? A buyback program is going to be very expensive (yes, Australia did it, but I don't think there were nearly as many). Not to mention all the pushback that wouldn't get anything passed.
The laws are so poorly written than many of them are easily avoided. I would have no problem with someone owning an AR-15 that had a truly fixed magazine of 5 rounds. I say "truly fixed" because a "fixed" magazine is defined by law as a magazine requiring a tool to remove. So many are made with a button too small for a finger that requirs a pointy object to eject. The tip of a bullet works just fine. Or even better, a cover over the ejection button with said small object attached to it, which completely makes the fixed magazine law useless and outdated.
Magazine limits should be good enough for anyone who wants to hunt with one, and works fine for the collector who just wants to target shoot.
Give owners 1 year to comply with getting modifications done to assault rifles.It's a hopeless situation...0 -
I was seeing he died from a self-inflicted gun shot.PJPOWER said:
Would you have preferred he got away and went to the next church? I’m glad this asshat got to experience the pain that he had inflicted on others.tbergs said:
Yeah, I'm going to have to disagree with your statement. Pretty sure over 2 dozen Texans got "fucked", but hey they got him in the end....a victory for gun owners everywhere.PJPOWER said:0 -
Grandfathering them in will still allow hundreds of thousands to be legally owned and out there, so that won;t satisfy most.tempo_n_groove said:
California did something like this.mace1229 said:
I don't like banning guns by name. If an AR-15 gets banned, how long do you think the smallest insignificant feature is changed and comes out with a completely different name?tbergs said:
Well, one state made it illegal to own a bump stock with your pretty AR killing device.Halifax2TheMax said:
Nothing can be done.Bentleyspop said:
Is there anybody on here opposed to the ban of owning AR-15 style assault rifles outside of LE and military?
Instead, ban the features that make an AR-15 more deadly than a typical hunting rifle.. And also in practice, what about the thousands already out there? A buyback program is going to be very expensive (yes, Australia did it, but I don't think there were nearly as many). Not to mention all the pushback that wouldn't get anything passed.
The laws are so poorly written than many of them are easily avoided. I would have no problem with someone owning an AR-15 that had a truly fixed magazine of 5 rounds. I say "truly fixed" because a "fixed" magazine is defined by law as a magazine requiring a tool to remove. So many are made with a button too small for a finger that requirs a pointy object to eject. The tip of a bullet works just fine. Or even better, a cover over the ejection button with said small object attached to it, which completely makes the fixed magazine law useless and outdated.
Magazine limits should be good enough for anyone who wants to hunt with one, and works fine for the collector who just wants to target shoot.
Give owners 1 year to comply with getting modifications done to assault rifles.
Basically any "military style" weapon was included in the bill. I believe that was in the late 80's early 90's?
You have to grandfather all the existing ones though.
Banning them completely won't happen.I have very little interest in assault rifles, so I don't know as much about them.
But I can't see how altering the definition of a fixed magazine from requiring a tool to something more fixed like multiple screws so that one cant just eject a magazine using the tip of a bullet or a slip cover that makes it easy would be very difficult. I don;t see that as a modification that cant be done for a few hundred bucks or less. And even giving a year grace period to get it done and having the government fork that bill would be a fraction of the cost of a buy-back program. And the end result is these assault rifles are no more lethal than any other hunting rifle when they cant hold large magazines that can be changed quickly.
0 -
Ok. My apologies. I haven't fired an AR or its like in about 10 years. What is the correct terminology you would like me to use? You have lots of criticism, but no answers or suggestions. Only Mace seems to be able to provide some sort of reasonable discussion points.unsung said:
Yes.tbergs said:
Well, one state made it illegal to own a bump stock with your pretty AR killing device.Halifax2TheMax said:
Nothing can be done.Bentleyspop said:
Is there anybody on here opposed to the ban of owning AR-15 style assault rifles outside of LE and military?
You can't even get the terminology correct.
Besides I have been hearing non-stop for a year how "literally Hitler" was elected President, and now those people want "literally Hitler" to be the one in control of all firearms.
Why do you want to give "literally Hitler" oh and the white supremacist and racist and apparently woman abusing and Russian colluder so much control?It's a hopeless situation...0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 149K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.2K The Porch
- 279 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.3K Flea Market
- 39.3K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help