mattsl1983 said:

cincybearcat said:

mattsl1983 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mattsl1983 said:

Gern Blansten said:

It's always interesting when the guy shows up with one of these arguments:
1. The AR-15 isn't an assault rifle
2. The (insert whatever weapon the latest mass shooter used) isn't any different than your Grandpa's 22

It always interests me when a guy 
1) doesn’t understand guns
2) thinks he knows something about guns
3) offers nothing to the conversation except the I think I know about guns but I really don’t.

now to entertain you, let’s say ar’s are illegal.  If someone’s going to commit these acts, do you really think it would be hard for them to get a hold of one? 

In what way is that a reason not to make them illegal?

If that’s your response, that’s exactly why the should be legal.  What difference right?

So if you are saying people will get them anyhow...even if illegal.  Are you for not having anything be illegal?  Cause you could make the same argument for almost anything couldn't you?

Isn’t that kind of how the war on drugs has gone, the war on immigration has gone?  Let’s not pretend that because something becomes illegal it ceases to exist.  

tbergs said:

mrussel1 said:

mattsl1983 said:

mrussel1 said:

mattsl1983 said:

mrussel1 said:

mattsl1983 said:

rgambs said:

mattsl1983 said:

mrussel1 said:

mattsl1983 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Jeez when I saw 60 new posts in this thread since I last visited about 8 hours ago, I figured there was a mass shooting overnight or something. Thankfully that's not the case and it's just the usual crap: gifs of Jeff Goldblum, references to Kiss live albums, and of course, suggestions that someone's post is parroted from cable news. 

Aren't you the guy being up in arms about AOC and Omar not stopping and responding to an alt-right, anti-muslim youtube channel?

I mean, I bet these 60 posts - including discussing KISS - have been of more substance than that. So maybe chill with calling other people's posts "crap" ?

Hmm, nope. Not me.  Have been off the forum for about a year, probably more.  But great job of assuming and not researching.

Prevention of the tragedies would be great, but reduction of the carnage is a good start.  Banning sales of military style weapons would achieve that end.  The weapon used in El Paso was purchased legally and recently.  Had the assault ban still been in place, chances are he could not have acquired the weapon.  That's a really, really easy one.  

Not really.  A rifle is a rifle.  No matter how much it looks military, it’s not.  Have you ever heard the saying you can paint a trash can but in the end it’s still a trash can?  That’s all ar’s are.  Cool looking rifles, but no difference from the same one o deer hunt with.  

There's that pile of turds I predicted!

How so?  Please point out the difference.  You call it a pile of turds, explain why it’s a pile of turds.  I really want to know.  I might be wrong.  Show me I’m wrong.  I’ll agree with you.                                                                                            

I already did.  Make AR's as bolt or lever action, then you'll be right.  But until then, you're wrong.  

Then you need to do the same with all handguns and any shotgun that’s not a single load or pump.  You are aware how guns work right?

stop with that stupid fucking question.   You already showed that you don't know how lever action rifles work, so you're moving onto a secondary argument, with handguns.  The point I'm making is that we can reduce the carnage by eliminating a weapon capable of grave, pervasive damage WITHOUT ever having to modify the weapon.  

It’s not a stupid fucking question.  A damn 9mm hand gun operates the same as a damn ar.  If you knew anything about guns you would know that.  Take your high and mighty bullshit somewhere else.  You think by getting pissy it proves any point you are trying to make aside from just making you sound completely flustered and out of ideas?  Because that’s exactly what it does.  Blame an ar or bushmaster.  Now go back and look at mass shootings and how many of them were used.  Then further educate yourself on what a semiautomatic does and how it operates.  But yes, let’s ban Ar’s.  How much has changed?

Okay dude.  You challenged that a 3030 marlin hunting rifle could be modified to be as pervasive of a killer as an AR.  That's total bullshit because you either 1. Don't know that the rifle is lever action or 2. Believe there is some fairy dust that turns a Marlin into a high capacity 30 shots per minute killing machine.  And I'm the one that doesn't know anything about guns.  I'm a gun owner, but not an enthusiast.  I own rifles and several handguns, including a .357 that I can also magically turn from a revolver into a 30 shot capacity.  It's really a fascinating mod that I've developed to make that happen.  But oh yeah, there's no way you can both own a gun and not have it spit out 30 rounds per minute right?  
There are solutions, but your own ignorance of weapons prevents you from understanding that not all guns can be turned into semi automatic high capacity killing tools.  

I am impressed with your resolve to argue the obvious with someone who clearly doesn't get it or care.

mattsl1983 said:

mrussel1 said:

mattsl1983 said:

rgambs said:

mattsl1983 said:

mrussel1 said:

mattsl1983 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Ledbetterman10 said:

Jeez when I saw 60 new posts in this thread since I last visited about 8 hours ago, I figured there was a mass shooting overnight or something. Thankfully that's not the case and it's just the usual crap: gifs of Jeff Goldblum, references to Kiss live albums, and of course, suggestions that someone's post is parroted from cable news. 

Aren't you the guy being up in arms about AOC and Omar not stopping and responding to an alt-right, anti-muslim youtube channel?

I mean, I bet these 60 posts - including discussing KISS - have been of more substance than that. So maybe chill with calling other people's posts "crap" ?

Hmm, nope. Not me.  Have been off the forum for about a year, probably more.  But great job of assuming and not researching.

Prevention of the tragedies would be great, but reduction of the carnage is a good start.  Banning sales of military style weapons would achieve that end.  The weapon used in El Paso was purchased legally and recently.  Had the assault ban still been in place, chances are he could not have acquired the weapon.  That's a really, really easy one.  

Not really.  A rifle is a rifle.  No matter how much it looks military, it’s not.  Have you ever heard the saying you can paint a trash can but in the end it’s still a trash can?  That’s all ar’s are.  Cool looking rifles, but no difference from the same one o deer hunt with.  

There's that pile of turds I predicted!

How so?  Please point out the difference.  You call it a pile of turds, explain why it’s a pile of turds.  I really want to know.  I might be wrong.  Show me I’m wrong.  I’ll agree with you.                                                                                            

I already did.  Make AR's as bolt or lever action, then you'll be right.  But until then, you're wrong.  

Then you need to do the same with all handguns and any shotgun that’s not a single load or pump.  You are aware how guns work right?

Sweden may have the answer to America’s gun problem

In Sweden, only responsible people can have guns

Here’s how the Swedish system works: Only responsible people are trusted with firearms. Sweden licenses guns in much the same way we license cars and drivers. You can have up to six guns but can get more with special permission.

To apply for a firearm permit you must first take a year-long hunter training program and pass a written and shooting test. You can also apply for a gun permit if you’ve been a member of an established shooting club for six months.

In addition to undergoing training, Sweden’s gun owners must store their firearms safely. Guns must be locked away in a vault, not stored beneath your car seat or in the nightstand where your kids can find them.

Responsibility in Sweden goes further yet: Convicted of a felony? No guns for you. Beat your wife? No guns. Under a restraining order? No guns. Drive drunk? No guns.

(The gun law does not spell out specific actions that cause a citizen to be "unfit" to have a gun permit. It does say that the police must have a "reasonable cause" to suspend a permit, and these kinds of things might signal that a gun owner is "unfit.")

Even so, being responsible is not such a tough job. Sweden denies permits to only about 1,000 people a year (out of 600,000 permit holders), and they can appeal their rejection to the courts.

And despite these restrictions, Sweden has a strong hunting culture.

/.../

And yet gun violence is low in Sweden. The country ranks 10th out of 178 countries in the world for per capita gun ownership but in 2014 had only 21 homicides by firearms. In contrast, the US is first in per capita ownership and had more than 8,000 gun homicides in 2014. Controlling for population, US firearms homicides are 700 percent higher than Sweden’s.

/.../

Sweden shows it’s possible to have a serious hunting culture with firearms restrictions. With rights comes responsibility. Let’s show the way. Who will be the courageous, visionary sportsmen and women who establish the first hunter registration system in Vermont, or New York, or in my home state of Wisconsin, and take a step forward to sensible gun use in America?

https://www.vox.com/2016/8/8/12351824/gun-control-sweden-solution

rgambs said:

All guns are the same, they all shoot bullets.

But I need an AR-15 to hunt boar.
It's not more deadly to humans, just boar.

mrussel1 said:

rgambs said:

All guns are the same, they all shoot bullets.

But I need an AR-15 to hunt boar.
It's not more deadly to humans, just boar.

I like that argument.  It's a great point.  

Gern Blansten said:

rgambs said:

All guns are the same, they all shoot bullets.

But I need an AR-15 to hunt boar.
It's not more deadly to humans, just boar.

And I could see that being justifiable.  With proper licensing and registration.

Spiritual_Chaos said:

PJPOWER said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

PJPOWER said:

Here is a decently put together graphic from NY Times that portrays some of the difficulties in banning “parts”.  The problem is that AR-15s are extremely adaptable and configurable.  I don’t have the answer, but I just wanted to point out the flaws with some of this “copy and paste” gun laws from other countries rhetoric.  Before the last assault weapons ban, these were not nearly as configurable and it was a bit easier to broadly ban them.  Now, it would take much more legislation to effectively ban these rifles.  In a time with such political animosity, I would not hang my hat on that coming any time soon, even if we get a Democrat president the next go around.  Better background checks on all purchases and training (as mentioned by Mcgruff) is a lot more attainment at this point and is where I believe the focus should be if anything at all is to be done.  Anyways, here is the mentioned article from way up there:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/07/31/us/assault-weapons-ban.html

In what way does it point our flaws with "some of this 'copy and paste' gun laws from other countries rhetoric" ?

For one, you guys never had these legally in the hands of millions of citizens to begin with.  The way your cute little country creates and changes laws is a totally different process.  There is no “copy and paste” function in federal or state legislation.  You have states that implement their own laws whether or not they coincide with federal law (see marijuana and immigrant enforcement).  
I’m not sure why you cannot get it through your head that the USA does not operate like Sweden (for better or worse).  I’m not saying we’re right, just that laws do not function in the same capacity.
Some things are attainable (increased background checks, training requirements) and some things are not “at this juncture” (had to throw that in there for you).

Lets all agree it doesn't operate like Sweden for worse. But, I do understand it does not operate the same. Obviously. Doesn't mean the end goal couldn't be to look at something similar solution-wise.

And:

• But at this juncture, I have no plans on performing on the upcoming KISS tour,
• I wanna give the fans the biggest bang for their buck, and they're not getting it at this juncture.
  
•  I think the only reason they make those statements at this juncture is to try to validate the fact that they have two other guys in the band that aren’t the original members.
  
• I had just had enough at that juncture in my life. But I was still fooling around with drugs and alcohol which clouded my judgement.
  
• I think it just proves there might be some jealously behind some of those statements and there might be more jealousy at this juncture.