America's Gun Violence

PJ_Soul said:

It is definitely not at all feasible that charges related to murder or wrongful death would be brought in another state.

HughFreakingDillon said:

mace1229 said:

CM189191 said:

mace1229 said:

CM189191 said:

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

PJPOWER said:

Gern Blansten said:

unsung said:

tbergs said:

unsung said:

tbergs said:

unsung said:

tbergs said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

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

• 
  

Nothing can be done.

Well, one state made it illegal to own a bump stock with your pretty AR killing device.

Is there anybody on here opposed to the ban of owning AR-15 style assault rifles outside of LE and military?

Yes.

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?

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.

Have you ever shot one?

If not, I will take you out to a range and introduce you to one.  I can then go over terminology and show you how it operates, including breaking it down and re-assembling it.

Yeah, did you read my answer? It's been about 9 years. I shot it several thousand times and was qualified with it before that. A crack shot with it. I could break it down and put it back together no problems. That's what I did.

Again, do you have any other suggestions. A civilian has no need to own an AR or other types of semi-auto assault rifles. Fear is the only reason no one is willing to give up these types of guns. Don't worry, we'll all die of lack of water and tillable land before the government comes for your guns. You will probably need your gun to protect your bunker of supplies from the raving masses of starving and thirsty.

Reminds me of this beautiful song;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fj-10lIrboM

Clearly yesterday proved that we need them, in order to stop bad people from harming others.

Thankfully it isn't the Bill of Needs.  Thankfully I don't need someone telling me what I do or don't.

You asked me what my terminology was, that lead me to believe your experience was not vast.  My terminology is what it actually is, not what the media says it is.

pretty sure that guy didn't have an assault weapon

Just following up:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/11/robert-farago/sutherland-springs-good-guy-gun-stephen-willeford-got-ar-15-safe-video/

That's fine....I stand corrected.  I had just heard that he grabbed his "rifle" from a safe which I assumed was just non assault weapon.

But the important thing to remember is that (while I completely support and commend this guy...for keeping his gun in a safe and for using it) this "good guy with a gun" did not stop the massacre.  We could argue that the shooter may have planned to go somewhere else and continue killing but I doubt that is the case.  It appears that his goal was to kill his mother in law and luckily for her she wasn't at the church.

The shooter was leaving the scene when he was shot.

At the very least they stopped him from escaping, no one can know if this was his end game, but he was trying to escape.  The only reasons I can think of why he would try and escape would be to either get away with what he had just done or to continue what he was doing.  From what I have read, he was still shooting at people (outside of the church) when he was shot.  At that moment, he got to experience the pain that he had been inflicting on others.  I’m glad there was a good guy with a gun there to give him a taste of his own medicine.  His control of the situation (whatever his plan was) was ended by a local armed citizen.

Yeah hats off to the guys that shot and pursued him.

Maybe he would have gone to hunt down the mother in law.  We'll never know.  Maybe the police would have shown up and taken him out.

I wonder what will happen to that guy.  He essentially murdered someone (or at least attempted murder).  It wasn't self-defense, it wasn't stand your ground.  He chased someone down who was fleeing and shot them.  I anticipate at least a wrongful death lawsuit, this has the potential to ruin his life.  

Absolutely nothing other than being called a hero.
True its tougher to prove self-defense when the guy is fleeing, but it can still be the case. You just have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you were in fear for yourself or others of serious injury or harm. I think anyone with 3 active brain cells could tell someone who just killed 26 people and injured how many more is likely going to keep killing, and unless he was actively surrendering then shooting him was 100% justified. Absolutely not murder or even attempted murder. Plenty of reason to justifiably believe he was going to continue to kill and harm others.

That's pure speculation.  For all we know he was driving to the police station to turn himself in.  

past performance does not guarantee future results 

That is probably the top 10 most ridiculous things I've heard on AMT (and i was around when Godfather was posting things).
Lets suppose you're right, he was going to turn himself in.
So what? One, you want to talk about speculation? I'm assuming a mass murder wants to kill and you assume a mass murderer is trying to turn himself in? Okay, but lets not speculate anything. Either way, that doesn't change anything. Anyone would still have reason to believe others are in harm. You only have to argue that a reasonable person could justifiably believe others are in harm. You want to argue otherwise then you are probably alone. Any sane person would have very good reason to believe others are in immediate danger. 100% justified.

to be fair, he wasn't speculating. he was countering the claim with another, just as reasonable claim, proving his stance that we didn't know and can't speculate. 

however, I do agree that the shooting of the murderer was justified. a guy kills 26 people: justified. 

Go Beavers said:

A good article from NY times. Conclusion: US gun violence and mass shootings are due to proliferation of guns and easy access to guns, not mental health and not because the US is somehow more violent than other countries. 
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/world/americas/mass-shootings-us-international.amp.html

CM189191 said:

unsung said:0

CM189191 said:

unsung said:

CM189191 said:

unsung said:

CM189191 said:

unsung said:

CM189191 said:

unsung said: 

CM189191 said:

unsung said:p

tbergs said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

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

Nothing can be done.

Well, one state made it illegal to own a bump stock with your pretty AR killing device.

Is there anybody on here opposed to the ban of owning AR-15 style assault rifles outside of LE and military?

Yes.

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?

every gun
every owner
every transfer
documented

how's that for terminology

Already is in my State.

So how does that stop a bad person from doing bad things?

it's not about stopping bad people from doing bad things
it's about restricting the opportunities for bad people to do bad things so easily

how many times does it have to be explained to you gun-fetishists?  more guns = more gun deaths
this is not a cultural issue of 'the usa has too many bad people", it's an issue of "the usa has too many guns and gun-nuts"

less guns, less gun deaths
it really is that fucking simple, and has been proven the world over.  How is this not sinking in?

I'd just like to know how you propose doing this?

"But nobody is calling for a gun ban!"

edit: the same way they do it in every other modern industrialized nation that seems to make it through the week without a mass shooting

you act like this is so difficult

And what way is that?

I don't act.

If explain it to you, but you probably wouldn't understand the terminology. 

Typical conservative. Doesn't realize he's part of the problem. Wants progressives to fix it. 

It's sad this isn't an act. If you had any sense of shame or embarrassment, now would be the time for you to feel it. 

I’d never ask a progressive to fix my problems, I handle them myself.

Alright wise guy, then what's your solution to gun violence?  You seem pretty content with the status quo when that's clearly not working. 

Could always ban leftists from owning firearms as most of the violence done in the US today is done by leftists.

Shouldn't be too much of an issue since you all hate guns anyway.

BTW, assault any Senators today?

this is bold-faced lie and you know it is.  why do you continually spout lies that are easily dis-proven? liar

HughFreakingDillon said:

unsung said:l.p.

Last few shootings...
LV democrat
Texas atheist democrat
Orlando gay democrat

Just turn them all in... for the children.  For the future.

atheist and gay have some sort of significance here?

all of the gun accidents that occur around the country. I wonder what political affiliation they overwhelmingly belong to?