America's Gun Violence

Halifax2TheMax · November 2017

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mace1229 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

I seriously doubt that any survivors become indifferent after such an event, let alone 33% of them.

When it comes to preventable deaths in the tens of thousands, trying to minimize them with a low percentage compared to the population definitely becomes problematic.... Thirty makes a good point in mentioning terrorist attack victims. The same people who reject gun reform also tend to be pretty gung ho about fighting terror, when in fact gun owners are far more dangerous than terrorists are if you're considering victim stats. It's a valid counterpoint.

gun owners are more dangers that terrorists? that's a new one.

should I pull the typical question here and ask where are your links or data to prove that "the same people who reject gun reforms also tend to be pretty gung ho about fighting terror?"

and the terrorist attacks were a god damn act of war, our gun issue is not an act of war. Big difference.
I mean over 10,000 people die in drunken driving accidents a year, should we ban bars? Responsible drinker until they weren't right?

no one is banning all guns. ONCE AGAIN, NO ONE IS SUGGESTING BANNING ALL GUNS. but to your point, when drunk driving became something of an epidemic, the legal system answered in kind:

-lower blood alcohol legal limits
-stricter penalties for driving under the influence
-court ordered installation of breathalyzer-triggered ignition systems for repeat offenders
-public awareness campaigns up the ying yang of the dangers of drinking and driving
-and the big one: LICENSING REQUIREMENTS WITH COMPETENCY TESTING FROM THE OUTSET

so if you want to compare guns to cars, sure, let's do that. we can do that all day.

Not only that...

Laws have been developed where the servers can be charged in the event someone becomes overly intoxicated and causes harm- they have an inherent responsibility to serve responsibly.

I haven't heard of too many gun dealers getting charged for selling irresponsibly.

What would constitute selling irresponsibly?
ibwoukd never agree that anyone who sold guns legally should gave any consequences if that person chose to use the gun in a crime. If they went around laws or didn't complete a required background check or something of that nature, then yes I would agree. And there are already stiff penalties for that.
ive also said before, and most seem to agree, always require a background check.

Didn't Eric Harris get one of his guns on-line?

Let's not pretend current laws protect society. They protect the gun industry.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, which issues Federal Firearms Licenses, is forbidden from inspecting the 104,000 licensed gun dealers more than once a year. Notorious gun-law violators, known as dirty dealers, are well-protected by this rule.

More than 100 gun shows now take place every weekend in armories and flea markets across the nation, attended by up to 5 million people a year. These are almost entirely unregulated marketplaces, where unlicensed dealers are not required to perform background checks.

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/how-they-got-the-guns-19990610

Don’t use facts. It’s all about feelings. Never mind the ATF is vastly underfunded for the role they’re supposed to play in the “responsible” part of the equation.

PJ_Soul · November 2017

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

I seriously doubt that any survivors become indifferent after such an event, let alone 33% of them.

When it comes to preventable deaths in the tens of thousands, trying to minimize them with a low percentage compared to the population definitely becomes problematic.... Thirty makes a good point in mentioning terrorist attack victims. The same people who reject gun reform also tend to be pretty gung ho about fighting terror, when in fact gun owners are far more dangerous than terrorists are if you're considering victim stats. It's a valid counterpoint.

gun owners are more dangers that terrorists? that's a new one.

should I pull the typical question here and ask where are your links or data to prove that "the same people who reject gun reforms also tend to be pretty gung ho about fighting terror?"

and the terrorist attacks were a god damn act of war, our gun issue is not an act of war. Big difference.
I mean over 10,000 people die in drunken driving accidents a year, should we ban bars? Responsible drinker until they weren't right?

Um, I think you missed my point here.

Yeah, if you're considering victim statistics, gun owners are way more dangerous than terrorists in America. I don't know if it's new or not, but it's a hard fact.

Obviously I have no links or data to prove that people against gun reform are gung ho about fighting terrorism, but I am comfortable saying that it's a very safe assumption that I've made after lots of observation and the attitudes expressed by politicians who express that sentiment and all the voters who vote for them.

Hey man, you're the one who opened the door to what I'm saying. You're the one who quoted a statistic about death and claimed it meant something to your perspective. I'm not sure why you're now trying to say that this tactic doesn't work, because, in case you missed it, that is the exact point I was trying to make when you did it.

Aaah "in America"...that makes more sense. You didn't have those two words in your original post. And of course more people have been killed by firearms than terrorists. However I don't like your use of the word "dangerous" but whatever.

Well it is the "America's Gun Violence" thread.
I'm not sure why you don't like the word "dangerous". Can you explain?

yes it is an "americans gun violence" thread but we do talk about other countries so the "in america" is pretty key.
I don't like the word "dangerous" because I would say over 99% of legal gun owners in the united states aren't dangerous however all terrorists are dangerous.

I think the word dangerous really boils down to how likely it is you're going to be hurt or killed by something. Doesn't that sound reasonable? I don't think "dangerous" is defined by motive or intent. It is all about the impact and level of risk when it comes to individual and public safety. If we go with your thinking, then a serial killer down in Florida is much more dangerous to us all than drunk drivers are. So yeah, I think gun owners are many times more dangerous than terrorists in America.

tempo_n_groove · November 2017

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

I seriously doubt that any survivors become indifferent after such an event, let alone 33% of them.

When it comes to preventable deaths in the tens of thousands, trying to minimize them with a low percentage compared to the population definitely becomes problematic.... Thirty makes a good point in mentioning terrorist attack victims. The same people who reject gun reform also tend to be pretty gung ho about fighting terror, when in fact gun owners are far more dangerous than terrorists are if you're considering victim stats. It's a valid counterpoint.

gun owners are more dangers that terrorists? that's a new one.

should I pull the typical question here and ask where are your links or data to prove that "the same people who reject gun reforms also tend to be pretty gung ho about fighting terror?"

and the terrorist attacks were a god damn act of war, our gun issue is not an act of war. Big difference.
I mean over 10,000 people die in drunken driving accidents a year, should we ban bars? Responsible drinker until they weren't right?

no one is banning all guns. ONCE AGAIN, NO ONE IS SUGGESTING BANNING ALL GUNS. but to your point, when drunk driving became something of an epidemic, the legal system answered in kind:

-lower blood alcohol legal limits
-stricter penalties for driving under the influence
-court ordered installation of breathalyzer-triggered ignition systems for repeat offenders
-public awareness campaigns up the ying yang of the dangers of drinking and driving
-and the big one: LICENSING REQUIREMENTS WITH COMPETENCY TESTING FROM THE OUTSET

so if you want to compare guns to cars, sure, let's do that. we can do that all day.

Not only that...

Laws have been developed where the servers can be charged in the event someone becomes overly intoxicated and causes harm- they have an inherent responsibility to serve responsibly.

I haven't heard of too many gun dealers getting charged for selling irresponsibly.

There is someone trying to pass a law that would make Gun Manufacturers responsible for any killing done with one of their guns.

It won't pass and it has been tried before too and didn't pass.

HughFreakingDillon · November 2017

tempo_n_groove said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

I seriously doubt that any survivors become indifferent after such an event, let alone 33% of them.

When it comes to preventable deaths in the tens of thousands, trying to minimize them with a low percentage compared to the population definitely becomes problematic.... Thirty makes a good point in mentioning terrorist attack victims. The same people who reject gun reform also tend to be pretty gung ho about fighting terror, when in fact gun owners are far more dangerous than terrorists are if you're considering victim stats. It's a valid counterpoint.

gun owners are more dangers that terrorists? that's a new one.

should I pull the typical question here and ask where are your links or data to prove that "the same people who reject gun reforms also tend to be pretty gung ho about fighting terror?"

and the terrorist attacks were a god damn act of war, our gun issue is not an act of war. Big difference.
I mean over 10,000 people die in drunken driving accidents a year, should we ban bars? Responsible drinker until they weren't right?

no one is banning all guns. ONCE AGAIN, NO ONE IS SUGGESTING BANNING ALL GUNS. but to your point, when drunk driving became something of an epidemic, the legal system answered in kind:

-lower blood alcohol legal limits
-stricter penalties for driving under the influence
-court ordered installation of breathalyzer-triggered ignition systems for repeat offenders
-public awareness campaigns up the ying yang of the dangers of drinking and driving
-and the big one: LICENSING REQUIREMENTS WITH COMPETENCY TESTING FROM THE OUTSET

so if you want to compare guns to cars, sure, let's do that. we can do that all day.

Not only that...

Laws have been developed where the servers can be charged in the event someone becomes overly intoxicated and causes harm- they have an inherent responsibility to serve responsibly.

I haven't heard of too many gun dealers getting charged for selling irresponsibly.

There is someone trying to pass a law that would make Gun Manufacturers responsible for any killing done with one of their guns.

It won't pass and it has been tried before too and didn't pass.

honestly, trying to make that law is really stupid.

Thirty Bills Unpaid · November 2017

HughFreakingDillon said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

I seriously doubt that any survivors become indifferent after such an event, let alone 33% of them.

When it comes to preventable deaths in the tens of thousands, trying to minimize them with a low percentage compared to the population definitely becomes problematic.... Thirty makes a good point in mentioning terrorist attack victims. The same people who reject gun reform also tend to be pretty gung ho about fighting terror, when in fact gun owners are far more dangerous than terrorists are if you're considering victim stats. It's a valid counterpoint.

gun owners are more dangers that terrorists? that's a new one.

should I pull the typical question here and ask where are your links or data to prove that "the same people who reject gun reforms also tend to be pretty gung ho about fighting terror?"

and the terrorist attacks were a god damn act of war, our gun issue is not an act of war. Big difference.
I mean over 10,000 people die in drunken driving accidents a year, should we ban bars? Responsible drinker until they weren't right?

no one is banning all guns. ONCE AGAIN, NO ONE IS SUGGESTING BANNING ALL GUNS. but to your point, when drunk driving became something of an epidemic, the legal system answered in kind:

-lower blood alcohol legal limits
-stricter penalties for driving under the influence
-court ordered installation of breathalyzer-triggered ignition systems for repeat offenders
-public awareness campaigns up the ying yang of the dangers of drinking and driving
-and the big one: LICENSING REQUIREMENTS WITH COMPETENCY TESTING FROM THE OUTSET

so if you want to compare guns to cars, sure, let's do that. we can do that all day.

Not only that...

Laws have been developed where the servers can be charged in the event someone becomes overly intoxicated and causes harm- they have an inherent responsibility to serve responsibly.

I haven't heard of too many gun dealers getting charged for selling irresponsibly.

There is someone trying to pass a law that would make Gun Manufacturers responsible for any killing done with one of their guns.

It won't pass and it has been tried before too and didn't pass.

honestly, trying to make that law is really stupid.

Agreed.

tbergs · November 2017

tempo_n_groove said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

I seriously doubt that any survivors become indifferent after such an event, let alone 33% of them.

When it comes to preventable deaths in the tens of thousands, trying to minimize them with a low percentage compared to the population definitely becomes problematic.... Thirty makes a good point in mentioning terrorist attack victims. The same people who reject gun reform also tend to be pretty gung ho about fighting terror, when in fact gun owners are far more dangerous than terrorists are if you're considering victim stats. It's a valid counterpoint.

gun owners are more dangers that terrorists? that's a new one.

should I pull the typical question here and ask where are your links or data to prove that "the same people who reject gun reforms also tend to be pretty gung ho about fighting terror?"

and the terrorist attacks were a god damn act of war, our gun issue is not an act of war. Big difference.
I mean over 10,000 people die in drunken driving accidents a year, should we ban bars? Responsible drinker until they weren't right?

no one is banning all guns. ONCE AGAIN, NO ONE IS SUGGESTING BANNING ALL GUNS. but to your point, when drunk driving became something of an epidemic, the legal system answered in kind:

-lower blood alcohol legal limits
-stricter penalties for driving under the influence
-court ordered installation of breathalyzer-triggered ignition systems for repeat offenders
-public awareness campaigns up the ying yang of the dangers of drinking and driving
-and the big one: LICENSING REQUIREMENTS WITH COMPETENCY TESTING FROM THE OUTSET

so if you want to compare guns to cars, sure, let's do that. we can do that all day.

Not only that...

Laws have been developed where the servers can be charged in the event someone becomes overly intoxicated and causes harm- they have an inherent responsibility to serve responsibly.

I haven't heard of too many gun dealers getting charged for selling irresponsibly.

There is someone trying to pass a law that would make Gun Manufacturers responsible for any killing done with one of their guns.

It won't pass and it has been tried before too and didn't pass.

Yeah, that's a bit extreme.

Don't you think that these gun dealers/stores have a pretty good gauge for people that are either unusual or exhibiting strange behavior when they are buying from them? Like all of us, we know what a typical customer looks like in our respective trade so the majority of outliers will stand out in some way. I don't know how you translate that in to some type of meaningful prevention measure beyond the background. Maybe it's a simple ATF tipline that would require some further follow-up if submitted.

Halifax2TheMax · November 2017

tbergs said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

I seriously doubt that any survivors become indifferent after such an event, let alone 33% of them.

When it comes to preventable deaths in the tens of thousands, trying to minimize them with a low percentage compared to the population definitely becomes problematic.... Thirty makes a good point in mentioning terrorist attack victims. The same people who reject gun reform also tend to be pretty gung ho about fighting terror, when in fact gun owners are far more dangerous than terrorists are if you're considering victim stats. It's a valid counterpoint.

gun owners are more dangers that terrorists? that's a new one.

should I pull the typical question here and ask where are your links or data to prove that "the same people who reject gun reforms also tend to be pretty gung ho about fighting terror?"

and the terrorist attacks were a god damn act of war, our gun issue is not an act of war. Big difference.
I mean over 10,000 people die in drunken driving accidents a year, should we ban bars? Responsible drinker until they weren't right?

no one is banning all guns. ONCE AGAIN, NO ONE IS SUGGESTING BANNING ALL GUNS. but to your point, when drunk driving became something of an epidemic, the legal system answered in kind:

-lower blood alcohol legal limits
-stricter penalties for driving under the influence
-court ordered installation of breathalyzer-triggered ignition systems for repeat offenders
-public awareness campaigns up the ying yang of the dangers of drinking and driving
-and the big one: LICENSING REQUIREMENTS WITH COMPETENCY TESTING FROM THE OUTSET

so if you want to compare guns to cars, sure, let's do that. we can do that all day.

Not only that...

Laws have been developed where the servers can be charged in the event someone becomes overly intoxicated and causes harm- they have an inherent responsibility to serve responsibly.

I haven't heard of too many gun dealers getting charged for selling irresponsibly.

There is someone trying to pass a law that would make Gun Manufacturers responsible for any killing done with one of their guns.

It won't pass and it has been tried before too and didn't pass.

Yeah, that's a bit extreme.

Don't you think that these gun dealers/stores have a pretty good gauge for people that are either unusual or exhibiting strange behavior when they are buying from them? Like all of us, we know what a typical customer looks like in our respective trade so the majority of outliers will stand out in some way. I don't know how you translate that in to some type of meaningful prevention measure beyond the background. Maybe it's a simple ATF tipline that would require some further follow-up if submitted.

Fast and Furious originated with a gun dealer tip to the ATF. Problem is, lack of resources to adequately enforce existing law, which doesn't have a severe enough punishment component to deter "responsible" gun sellers from being motivated by profit. Remember, every gun begins its life cycle as a legal product. The NRA protects the gun industry by opposing stricter enforcement and increased funding, as well as more severe punishment, among other things.

oftenreading · November 2017

tbergs said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

I seriously doubt that any survivors become indifferent after such an event, let alone 33% of them.

When it comes to preventable deaths in the tens of thousands, trying to minimize them with a low percentage compared to the population definitely becomes problematic.... Thirty makes a good point in mentioning terrorist attack victims. The same people who reject gun reform also tend to be pretty gung ho about fighting terror, when in fact gun owners are far more dangerous than terrorists are if you're considering victim stats. It's a valid counterpoint.

gun owners are more dangers that terrorists? that's a new one.

should I pull the typical question here and ask where are your links or data to prove that "the same people who reject gun reforms also tend to be pretty gung ho about fighting terror?"

and the terrorist attacks were a god damn act of war, our gun issue is not an act of war. Big difference.
I mean over 10,000 people die in drunken driving accidents a year, should we ban bars? Responsible drinker until they weren't right?

no one is banning all guns. ONCE AGAIN, NO ONE IS SUGGESTING BANNING ALL GUNS. but to your point, when drunk driving became something of an epidemic, the legal system answered in kind:

-lower blood alcohol legal limits
-stricter penalties for driving under the influence
-court ordered installation of breathalyzer-triggered ignition systems for repeat offenders
-public awareness campaigns up the ying yang of the dangers of drinking and driving
-and the big one: LICENSING REQUIREMENTS WITH COMPETENCY TESTING FROM THE OUTSET

so if you want to compare guns to cars, sure, let's do that. we can do that all day.

Not only that...

Laws have been developed where the servers can be charged in the event someone becomes overly intoxicated and causes harm- they have an inherent responsibility to serve responsibly.

I haven't heard of too many gun dealers getting charged for selling irresponsibly.

There is someone trying to pass a law that would make Gun Manufacturers responsible for any killing done with one of their guns.

It won't pass and it has been tried before too and didn't pass.

Yeah, that's a bit extreme.

Don't you think that these gun dealers/stores have a pretty good gauge for people that are either unusual or exhibiting strange behavior when they are buying from them? Like all of us, we know what a typical customer looks like in our respective trade so the majority of outliers will stand out in some way. I don't know how you translate that in to some type of meaningful prevention measure beyond the background. Maybe it's a simple ATF tipline that would require some further follow-up if submitted.

I doubt that more than half of the guys who have perpetrated the last dozen or so mass shootings looked any different than the average gun customer. Maybe the Aurora shooter, but who else?

HughFreakingDillon · November 2017

oftenreading said:

tbergs said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

I seriously doubt that any survivors become indifferent after such an event, let alone 33% of them.

When it comes to preventable deaths in the tens of thousands, trying to minimize them with a low percentage compared to the population definitely becomes problematic.... Thirty makes a good point in mentioning terrorist attack victims. The same people who reject gun reform also tend to be pretty gung ho about fighting terror, when in fact gun owners are far more dangerous than terrorists are if you're considering victim stats. It's a valid counterpoint.

gun owners are more dangers that terrorists? that's a new one.

should I pull the typical question here and ask where are your links or data to prove that "the same people who reject gun reforms also tend to be pretty gung ho about fighting terror?"

and the terrorist attacks were a god damn act of war, our gun issue is not an act of war. Big difference.
I mean over 10,000 people die in drunken driving accidents a year, should we ban bars? Responsible drinker until they weren't right?

no one is banning all guns. ONCE AGAIN, NO ONE IS SUGGESTING BANNING ALL GUNS. but to your point, when drunk driving became something of an epidemic, the legal system answered in kind:

-lower blood alcohol legal limits
-stricter penalties for driving under the influence
-court ordered installation of breathalyzer-triggered ignition systems for repeat offenders
-public awareness campaigns up the ying yang of the dangers of drinking and driving
-and the big one: LICENSING REQUIREMENTS WITH COMPETENCY TESTING FROM THE OUTSET

so if you want to compare guns to cars, sure, let's do that. we can do that all day.

Not only that...

Laws have been developed where the servers can be charged in the event someone becomes overly intoxicated and causes harm- they have an inherent responsibility to serve responsibly.

I haven't heard of too many gun dealers getting charged for selling irresponsibly.

There is someone trying to pass a law that would make Gun Manufacturers responsible for any killing done with one of their guns.

It won't pass and it has been tried before too and didn't pass.

Yeah, that's a bit extreme.

Don't you think that these gun dealers/stores have a pretty good gauge for people that are either unusual or exhibiting strange behavior when they are buying from them? Like all of us, we know what a typical customer looks like in our respective trade so the majority of outliers will stand out in some way. I don't know how you translate that in to some type of meaningful prevention measure beyond the background. Maybe it's a simple ATF tipline that would require some further follow-up if submitted.

I doubt that more than half of the guys who have perpetrated the last dozen or so mass shootings looked any different than the average gun customer. Maybe the Aurora shooter, but who else?

I was going to say the same thing. it's not like they walk in, full fatigues, looking paranoid, blasting Ted Nugent, all jittery, etc. at the time they probably looked like every other gun customer.

tbergs · November 2017

HughFreakingDillon said:

oftenreading said:

tbergs said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

I seriously doubt that any survivors become indifferent after such an event, let alone 33% of them.

When it comes to preventable deaths in the tens of thousands, trying to minimize them with a low percentage compared to the population definitely becomes problematic.... Thirty makes a good point in mentioning terrorist attack victims. The same people who reject gun reform also tend to be pretty gung ho about fighting terror, when in fact gun owners are far more dangerous than terrorists are if you're considering victim stats. It's a valid counterpoint.

gun owners are more dangers that terrorists? that's a new one.

should I pull the typical question here and ask where are your links or data to prove that "the same people who reject gun reforms also tend to be pretty gung ho about fighting terror?"

and the terrorist attacks were a god damn act of war, our gun issue is not an act of war. Big difference.
I mean over 10,000 people die in drunken driving accidents a year, should we ban bars? Responsible drinker until they weren't right?

no one is banning all guns. ONCE AGAIN, NO ONE IS SUGGESTING BANNING ALL GUNS. but to your point, when drunk driving became something of an epidemic, the legal system answered in kind:

-lower blood alcohol legal limits
-stricter penalties for driving under the influence
-court ordered installation of breathalyzer-triggered ignition systems for repeat offenders
-public awareness campaigns up the ying yang of the dangers of drinking and driving
-and the big one: LICENSING REQUIREMENTS WITH COMPETENCY TESTING FROM THE OUTSET

so if you want to compare guns to cars, sure, let's do that. we can do that all day.

Not only that...

Laws have been developed where the servers can be charged in the event someone becomes overly intoxicated and causes harm- they have an inherent responsibility to serve responsibly.

I haven't heard of too many gun dealers getting charged for selling irresponsibly.

There is someone trying to pass a law that would make Gun Manufacturers responsible for any killing done with one of their guns.

It won't pass and it has been tried before too and didn't pass.

Yeah, that's a bit extreme.

Don't you think that these gun dealers/stores have a pretty good gauge for people that are either unusual or exhibiting strange behavior when they are buying from them? Like all of us, we know what a typical customer looks like in our respective trade so the majority of outliers will stand out in some way. I don't know how you translate that in to some type of meaningful prevention measure beyond the background. Maybe it's a simple ATF tipline that would require some further follow-up if submitted.

I doubt that more than half of the guys who have perpetrated the last dozen or so mass shootings looked any different than the average gun customer. Maybe the Aurora shooter, but who else?

I was going to say the same thing. it's not like they walk in, full fatigues, looking paranoid, blasting Ted Nugent, all jittery, etc. at the time they probably looked like every other gun customer.

If you pay attention, people always stand out in how they act and talk comparatively. You're right, they wouldn't look obvious to you and me, but someone who sells guns to people everyday should be able to pick up on it. In law enforcement, one of the only ways to pick up on the outliers is based on years and years of contacts with similar people in that spectrum. There are commonalities you pick up on. A lot of it is hard to explain. It's that "based on my training and experience" line so many people hate.

It's not that hard to fathom.

unsung · November 2017

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

I seriously doubt that any survivors become indifferent after such an event, let alone 33% of them.

When it comes to preventable deaths in the tens of thousands, trying to minimize them with a low percentage compared to the population definitely becomes problematic.... Thirty makes a good point in mentioning terrorist attack victims. The same people who reject gun reform also tend to be pretty gung ho about fighting terror, when in fact gun owners are far more dangerous than terrorists are if you're considering victim stats. It's a valid counterpoint.

gun owners are more dangers that terrorists? that's a new one.

should I pull the typical question here and ask where are your links or data to prove that "the same people who reject gun reforms also tend to be pretty gung ho about fighting terror?"

and the terrorist attacks were a god damn act of war, our gun issue is not an act of war. Big difference.
I mean over 10,000 people die in drunken driving accidents a year, should we ban bars? Responsible drinker until they weren't right?

no one is banning all guns. ONCE AGAIN, NO ONE IS SUGGESTING BANNING ALL GUNS. but to your point, when drunk driving became something of an epidemic, the legal system answered in kind:

-lower blood alcohol legal limits
-stricter penalties for driving under the influence
-court ordered installation of breathalyzer-triggered ignition systems for repeat offenders
-public awareness campaigns up the ying yang of the dangers of drinking and driving
-and the big one: LICENSING REQUIREMENTS WITH COMPETENCY TESTING FROM THE OUTSET

so if you want to compare guns to cars, sure, let's do that. we can do that all day.

Not only that...

Laws have been developed where the servers can be charged in the event someone becomes overly intoxicated and causes harm- they have an inherent responsibility to serve responsibly.

I haven't heard of too many gun dealers getting charged for selling irresponsibly.

They have bagged certain politicians though, you know the one from California was it? He was as anti gun as they come, just not when he could make a buck.

unsung · November 2017

Halifax2TheMax said:

mace1229 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Ha, ha! Hilarious! Another responsible gun owner. Remind me not to go to church.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/11/17/a-man-accidentally-shot-himself-and-his-wife-at-a-church-shortly-after-a-discussion-on-shootings/

I am curious. Why do you refer to essentially every situation as a "responsible gun owner?" It seems like you're mocking the idea of someone owning a gun and being responsible? No one said 100% of gun owners are responsible, and most are for regulations that would help determine which ones are t and prevent them from possessing a gun.
do you not believe that people can, and almost always do take proper precautions with their firearms? What is the number, something like 300 million guns in this country or something? And a couple thousand accidental shootings.
Not that we can't or shouldn't try to do better, but how is there no such thing as a responsible gun owner?

Because that’s how the NRA and you gun owners always present yourselves and when “accidents” happen, there seem to be little to no consequences of said “accidents.” I’ve posted a few news stories of people who were alleged to have been “responsible” gun owners killing and maiming innocent people minding there own business. I’ve also posted statistics about “responsible” gun owners who when they reported their guns stolen, didn’t even know the last place they had left it. Happens everyday in the good ‘ol US of A. So yea, responsible gun owner until you’re not.
I didn’t say “there’s no such thing as a responsible gun owner.” Thanks for muddying the waters. Just like I’ve never called for a ban of guns or gun shows but you seem to use those terms together quite frequently.

This forum is horrible on mobile.

This forum is horrible on mobile.

This forum is horrible on mobile.

oftenreading · November 2017

tbergs said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

oftenreading said:

tbergs said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

I seriously doubt that any survivors become indifferent after such an event, let alone 33% of them.

When it comes to preventable deaths in the tens of thousands, trying to minimize them with a low percentage compared to the population definitely becomes problematic.... Thirty makes a good point in mentioning terrorist attack victims. The same people who reject gun reform also tend to be pretty gung ho about fighting terror, when in fact gun owners are far more dangerous than terrorists are if you're considering victim stats. It's a valid counterpoint.

gun owners are more dangers that terrorists? that's a new one.

should I pull the typical question here and ask where are your links or data to prove that "the same people who reject gun reforms also tend to be pretty gung ho about fighting terror?"

and the terrorist attacks were a god damn act of war, our gun issue is not an act of war. Big difference.
I mean over 10,000 people die in drunken driving accidents a year, should we ban bars? Responsible drinker until they weren't right?

no one is banning all guns. ONCE AGAIN, NO ONE IS SUGGESTING BANNING ALL GUNS. but to your point, when drunk driving became something of an epidemic, the legal system answered in kind:

-lower blood alcohol legal limits
-stricter penalties for driving under the influence
-court ordered installation of breathalyzer-triggered ignition systems for repeat offenders
-public awareness campaigns up the ying yang of the dangers of drinking and driving
-and the big one: LICENSING REQUIREMENTS WITH COMPETENCY TESTING FROM THE OUTSET

so if you want to compare guns to cars, sure, let's do that. we can do that all day.

Not only that...

Laws have been developed where the servers can be charged in the event someone becomes overly intoxicated and causes harm- they have an inherent responsibility to serve responsibly.

I haven't heard of too many gun dealers getting charged for selling irresponsibly.

There is someone trying to pass a law that would make Gun Manufacturers responsible for any killing done with one of their guns.

It won't pass and it has been tried before too and didn't pass.

Yeah, that's a bit extreme.

Don't you think that these gun dealers/stores have a pretty good gauge for people that are either unusual or exhibiting strange behavior when they are buying from them? Like all of us, we know what a typical customer looks like in our respective trade so the majority of outliers will stand out in some way. I don't know how you translate that in to some type of meaningful prevention measure beyond the background. Maybe it's a simple ATF tipline that would require some further follow-up if submitted.

I doubt that more than half of the guys who have perpetrated the last dozen or so mass shootings looked any different than the average gun customer. Maybe the Aurora shooter, but who else?

I was going to say the same thing. it's not like they walk in, full fatigues, looking paranoid, blasting Ted Nugent, all jittery, etc. at the time they probably looked like every other gun customer.

If you pay attention, people always stand out in how they act and talk comparatively. You're right, they wouldn't look obvious to you and me, but someone who sells guns to people everyday should be able to pick up on it. In law enforcement, one of the only ways to pick up on the outliers is based on years and years of contacts with similar people in that spectrum. There are commonalities you pick up on. A lot of it is hard to explain. It's that "based on my training and experience" line so many people hate.

It's not that hard to fathom.

Some will stand out, particularly the ones in the later planning phase of a shooting that might be imminent. The others are just your typical gun owner, until that day weeks or months or even years later when they commit a mass shooting.

Halifax2TheMax · November 2017

oftenreading said:

tbergs said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

oftenreading said:

tbergs said:

tempo_n_groove said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

I seriously doubt that any survivors become indifferent after such an event, let alone 33% of them.

When it comes to preventable deaths in the tens of thousands, trying to minimize them with a low percentage compared to the population definitely becomes problematic.... Thirty makes a good point in mentioning terrorist attack victims. The same people who reject gun reform also tend to be pretty gung ho about fighting terror, when in fact gun owners are far more dangerous than terrorists are if you're considering victim stats. It's a valid counterpoint.

gun owners are more dangers that terrorists? that's a new one.

should I pull the typical question here and ask where are your links or data to prove that "the same people who reject gun reforms also tend to be pretty gung ho about fighting terror?"

and the terrorist attacks were a god damn act of war, our gun issue is not an act of war. Big difference.
I mean over 10,000 people die in drunken driving accidents a year, should we ban bars? Responsible drinker until they weren't right?

no one is banning all guns. ONCE AGAIN, NO ONE IS SUGGESTING BANNING ALL GUNS. but to your point, when drunk driving became something of an epidemic, the legal system answered in kind:

-lower blood alcohol legal limits
-stricter penalties for driving under the influence
-court ordered installation of breathalyzer-triggered ignition systems for repeat offenders
-public awareness campaigns up the ying yang of the dangers of drinking and driving
-and the big one: LICENSING REQUIREMENTS WITH COMPETENCY TESTING FROM THE OUTSET

so if you want to compare guns to cars, sure, let's do that. we can do that all day.

Not only that...

Laws have been developed where the servers can be charged in the event someone becomes overly intoxicated and causes harm- they have an inherent responsibility to serve responsibly.

I haven't heard of too many gun dealers getting charged for selling irresponsibly.

There is someone trying to pass a law that would make Gun Manufacturers responsible for any killing done with one of their guns.

It won't pass and it has been tried before too and didn't pass.

Yeah, that's a bit extreme.

Don't you think that these gun dealers/stores have a pretty good gauge for people that are either unusual or exhibiting strange behavior when they are buying from them? Like all of us, we know what a typical customer looks like in our respective trade so the majority of outliers will stand out in some way. I don't know how you translate that in to some type of meaningful prevention measure beyond the background. Maybe it's a simple ATF tipline that would require some further follow-up if submitted.

I doubt that more than half of the guys who have perpetrated the last dozen or so mass shootings looked any different than the average gun customer. Maybe the Aurora shooter, but who else?

I was going to say the same thing. it's not like they walk in, full fatigues, looking paranoid, blasting Ted Nugent, all jittery, etc. at the time they probably looked like every other gun customer.

If you pay attention, people always stand out in how they act and talk comparatively. You're right, they wouldn't look obvious to you and me, but someone who sells guns to people everyday should be able to pick up on it. In law enforcement, one of the only ways to pick up on the outliers is based on years and years of contacts with similar people in that spectrum. There are commonalities you pick up on. A lot of it is hard to explain. It's that "based on my training and experience" line so many people hate.

It's not that hard to fathom.

Some will stand out, particularly the ones in the later planning phase of a shooting that might be imminent. The others are just your typical gun owner, until that day weeks or months or even years later when they commit a mass shooting.

Or your typical “responsible” straw purchaser, wink, wink, nod, nod.

mace1229 · November 2017

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

mace1229 said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

mcgruff10 said:

PJ_Soul said:

I seriously doubt that any survivors become indifferent after such an event, let alone 33% of them.

When it comes to preventable deaths in the tens of thousands, trying to minimize them with a low percentage compared to the population definitely becomes problematic.... Thirty makes a good point in mentioning terrorist attack victims. The same people who reject gun reform also tend to be pretty gung ho about fighting terror, when in fact gun owners are far more dangerous than terrorists are if you're considering victim stats. It's a valid counterpoint.

gun owners are more dangers that terrorists? that's a new one.

should I pull the typical question here and ask where are your links or data to prove that "the same people who reject gun reforms also tend to be pretty gung ho about fighting terror?"

and the terrorist attacks were a god damn act of war, our gun issue is not an act of war. Big difference.
I mean over 10,000 people die in drunken driving accidents a year, should we ban bars? Responsible drinker until they weren't right?

no one is banning all guns. ONCE AGAIN, NO ONE IS SUGGESTING BANNING ALL GUNS. but to your point, when drunk driving became something of an epidemic, the legal system answered in kind:

-lower blood alcohol legal limits
-stricter penalties for driving under the influence
-court ordered installation of breathalyzer-triggered ignition systems for repeat offenders
-public awareness campaigns up the ying yang of the dangers of drinking and driving
-and the big one: LICENSING REQUIREMENTS WITH COMPETENCY TESTING FROM THE OUTSET

so if you want to compare guns to cars, sure, let's do that. we can do that all day.

Not only that...

Laws have been developed where the servers can be charged in the event someone becomes overly intoxicated and causes harm- they have an inherent responsibility to serve responsibly.

I haven't heard of too many gun dealers getting charged for selling irresponsibly.

What would constitute selling irresponsibly?
ibwoukd never agree that anyone who sold guns legally should gave any consequences if that person chose to use the gun in a crime. If they went around laws or didn't complete a required background check or something of that nature, then yes I would agree. And there are already stiff penalties for that.
ive also said before, and most seem to agree, always require a background check.

Didn't Eric Harris get one of his guns on-line?

Let's not pretend current laws protect society. They protect the gun industry.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, which issues Federal Firearms Licenses, is forbidden from inspecting the 104,000 licensed gun dealers more than once a year. Notorious gun-law violators, known as dirty dealers, are well-protected by this rule.

More than 100 gun shows now take place every weekend in armories and flea markets across the nation, attended by up to 5 million people a year. These are almost entirely unregulated marketplaces, where unlicensed dealers are not required to perform background checks.

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/how-they-got-the-guns-19990610

I've said here, and seems like many agree, there should always be background checks and regulations.
but either way, I just can't justifiably hold some responsible for what someone else did, especially if they didn't do anything illegal or have reason to believe they are not qualified.
make background checks mandatory, and if you illegally bypass it then yes, hold him accountable to some degree.

unsung · November 2017

Just saw a stat that police have killed more people since 2016 than all of the mass shootings over the last 40 years.

Halifax2TheMax · November 2017

unsung said:

Just saw a stat that police have killed more people since 2016 than all of the mass shootings over the last 40 years.

From June 23, 2015? Way to stay on top of the stats.

tbergs · November 2017

Halifax2TheMax said:

unsung said:

Just saw a stat that police have killed more people since 2016 than all of the mass shootings over the last 40 years.

From June 23, 2015? Way to stay on top of the stats.

Either way, comparing all police shootings to mass murdering asshats is far beyond ridiculous. That's fine if you want to take in to account the wrongful/criminal shootings police officers have committed, but all of them makes no sense.

Halifax2TheMax · November 2017

unsung said:

Just saw a stat that police have killed more people since 2016 than all of the mass shootings over the last 40 years.

An epidemic, something must be done! Too soon to talk about gun control legislation or a strategy to combat it?

Trump Administration Hard at Work on 'the Crisis Next Door'
New data compiled by the Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) reveals the opioid crisis in the United States is more severe than previously thought. Opioid-involved overdose deaths doubled in the past 10 years and quadrupled in the past 16 years, and drug overdoses are now the leading cause of death in the United States, outnumbering traffic crashes or gun-related deaths. President Trump has committed to deploying the tools of government to confront this intolerable epidemic head-on.

Go Beavers · November 2017

So I’m expecting a full law and order beat down on these addicts, just like with the crack epidemic. Oh wait, something’s different...

America's Gun Violence

Comments

Categories