America's Gun Violence #2

cblock4life said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

if you want change, you have to know what change it is you want. 

some of you keep hammering on the "semantics" issue. Sure, it's disingenuous from most on the gun toting side. I don't see it that way from mace. But I guess it's easier to pile on then to have an honest dialogue. 

I’m confused about a few things….first it was necessary to include semantics yesterday when you posted, then you watched the video and said fuck semantics, now today you’re ok with semantics when it’s mace.  Sorry, there aren’t levels to this anymore.  Either you’re not ok with guns or you are.  A gun, is a gun, is a gun, no matter what fucking kind it is.  

People have listened for years and years to the same “semantics “ and might I add most patiently and mature.  

Times up. 

Gern Blansten said:

Poncier said:

bootlegger10 said:

The Juggler said:

Gern Blansten said:

These were my neighbors until about six months ago when they moved. Strange that they felt this would make a nice family photo. The two boys clearly are not comfortable holding those guns....kind of an awkward pose.  Oh....and check out the white power symbol flash....am I overthinking that???

I've mentioned them before on here. They had a sign in their backyard near their dock that says "This property protected by the 2A"....like lake pirates were going to storm their property or something.

Interesting note....the young girl (now she is 17-18) is currently in our local jail for theft. She has been there for about a month awaiting trial because she didn't show up for her initial hearing.  Great family.

Crazy, gun toting, white supremacist's aside, you're neighborhood looks pretty awesome. 

 One thing that bugs me is how angry these people probably are.  They have a nice house on a lake, a family, probably a good job, and they have so much anger inside them because they think the government is suppressing them.

Yeah it amazes me that some folks with so much are still so angry and also unwilling to allow others to have opportunities to be heard or better themselves. Like the douchenozzle couple in St Louis who stood outside their house with their guns as protesters simply walked by. Such shallow human beings.

yeah what responsible gun owner does something like this? Luckily they didn't get killed or kill anyone. With all of those people walking by it would have been easy for one to get as close as possible and take them both out pretty quickly.

Fucking morons

HughFreakingDillon said:

cblock4life said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

if you want change, you have to know what change it is you want. 

some of you keep hammering on the "semantics" issue. Sure, it's disingenuous from most on the gun toting side. I don't see it that way from mace. But I guess it's easier to pile on then to have an honest dialogue. 

I’m confused about a few things….first it was necessary to include semantics yesterday when you posted, then you watched the video and said fuck semantics, now today you’re ok with semantics when it’s mace.  Sorry, there aren’t levels to this anymore.  Either you’re not ok with guns or you are.  A gun, is a gun, is a gun, no matter what fucking kind it is.  

People have listened for years and years to the same “semantics “ and might I add most patiently and mature.  

Times up. 

yes, you are confused. I'm tired of explaining it. 

I hate guns. Never shot one. Never held one. Never seen one up close. Never will. 

HughFreakingDillon said:

cblock4life said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

if you want change, you have to know what change it is you want. 

some of you keep hammering on the "semantics" issue. Sure, it's disingenuous from most on the gun toting side. I don't see it that way from mace. But I guess it's easier to pile on then to have an honest dialogue. 

I’m confused about a few things….first it was necessary to include semantics yesterday when you posted, then you watched the video and said fuck semantics, now today you’re ok with semantics when it’s mace.  Sorry, there aren’t levels to this anymore.  Either you’re not ok with guns or you are.  A gun, is a gun, is a gun, no matter what fucking kind it is.  

People have listened for years and years to the same “semantics “ and might I add most patiently and mature.  

Times up. 

yes, you are confused. I'm tired of explaining it. 

I hate guns. Never shot one. Never held one. Never seen one up close. Never will. 

Merkin Baller said:

tbergs said:

mace1229 said:

tbergs said:

brianlux said:

mace1229 said:

brianlux said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

The Juggler said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

well I sure hope that if any legislation is made that they care about "semantics". 

it's less semantics and more clarification for the purposes of discussion. not sure what the problem is with that. 

We're people on a god damned pearl jam message board. Pretty sure a bill would label things correctly. LOL

I know. You're not getting my point. 

For those who want to discuss the fine points of gun legislation, the details would be important, for sure. 
I guess you could say my perspective is more general.   From my way of looking at it, the finer details are not so important-  I just want to see firearms that are capable of firing several rounds rapidly and killing large numbers of people kept out of the hands of civilians.
I should probably steer clear of the more technical discussions here.

I don’t understand that perspective. If you’re passionate and want to see change, and I believe you do, why would you not care about technical discussions. Wouldn’t you want to be informed so when a law does pass you can voice your more educated opinion of why it’s a good or crap law?
I mentioned a few times a fixed magazine. I haven’t pointed out that the definition of a fixed magazine is stupid. It’s fixed if it requires a “tool” to remove. A tool could be the point of a pen, or more commonly the tip of a bullet. So they make the button too small for a finger, but the tip of a bullet fits and now it’s considered a fixed magazine, even though it can still be released in about 1.2 seconds. I would think that’s worth knowing for anyone who wants to see new laws.
So not only do we need to require fixed magazines, we need to redefine what that is.

I think I was pretty clear about what I'd like to see happen, but I'll say it again:

I want to see firearms that are capable of firing several rounds rapidly and killing large numbers of people kept out of the hands of civilians.

I see no reason to add any further technical details to that.  You either agree, or not.

Brian, you have to specifically name the model and features of the types of firearms you'd like kept out of Civilian hands. I can't agree with you otherwise. Oh, please also list the manufacturer and part numbers. I just want to make sure that you don't try to limit my rights when trying to ban guns I may want to use when my buddies and I want to have a get together at the range and fire off a few hundred rounds when we celebrate our freedom this July 4th. Thanks!

Cool. This is why nothing changes though. People offer real solutions and you just make fun of their input, congrats on being part of the problem.
No one expected Brian to name anything. Just adding to the discussion of what should be done. But this is the result when the “other side” joins the conversation, so they rarely do.

Oh boy, if this isn't rich. Look, I'm sure you're sincere in your approach here, but let's drop the BS that this is why nothing happens or this is the result when the other side joins the conversation. If the other side, and by that I mean the less than 20% of this country who value guns and the archaic meaning of 2A more than the life of innocent people, gave a shit, then they would at least be demanding universal background checks and waiting periods for all gun purchases under any circumstance because they want to end the stigma of what it means to own guns in this country. You can float this self righteous crap all you want, but the truth of the matter is that gun rights advocates want to continue to blame all the mass shootings and any shootings on "mental illness" and criminals. They like to use catch phrases and deflect, but once a few weeks have passed they go back to doing nothing about either mental illness or gun control and people keep voting for their dumbasses because, you know, the other side is going to take all your guns away. I wonder if any of you (figuratively speaking) would ever change your mind if it was your child lying in a pool of blood in their 3rd grade classroom or your child talking about how they saw their best friend gunned down. Hopefully it never comes to that because no one should ever have to suffer that trauma.

I'll keep waiting on that NRA funded GOP senator or congress person to reach across the aisle and introduce any new legislation to help prevent gun violence...

Agreed.

If the pro gun crowd was sincere about fixing gun violence in America, they wouldn't be sitting around waiting for the anti-gun crowd to get their terminology straight. 

The Juggler said:

Gern Blansten said:

cblock4life said:

tempo_n_groove said:

cblock4life said:

Here’s some semantics for you, are all guns capable of killing when the trigger is pulled?  Yea, that’s what I thought. 

No they can't and we went over this before...

No they can’t what?  Are you telling me that you don’t believe all guns can kill someone or did you read my comment incorrectly?  Serious question

you said "guns"...a squirt gun is not capable of killing

C'mon guys. We need to be as specific as possible. Daisy BB Guns should be excluded from this conversation as well. 

Gern Blansten said:

cblock4life said:

tempo_n_groove said:

cblock4life said:

Here’s some semantics for you, are all guns capable of killing when the trigger is pulled?  Yea, that’s what I thought. 

No they can't and we went over this before...

No they can’t what?  Are you telling me that you don’t believe all guns can kill someone or did you read my comment incorrectly?  Serious question

you said "guns"...a squirt gun is not capable of killing

tbergs said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

if you want change, you have to know what change it is you want. 

some of you keep hammering on the "semantics" issue. Sure, it's disingenuous from most on the gun toting side. I don't see it that way from mace. But I guess it's easier to pile on then to have an honest dialogue. 

I see it this way, the extreme side of the anti-gun group want guns banned, the just past moderate side wants some guns/features banned or heavily restricted and the most approachable and reasonable group of that side are those who just want to implement tighter laws around the purchase and ownership of guns. This should be the group that gun advocates focus on and work with to reach an agreement to prevent some of these incidents from happening, but instead they want to focus on any conversation around guns that involves the word "ban" or deflect to any talk about gun laws as being political and not the right time.

Look, this isn't just me bloviating, listen to Abbot, watch the Ted Cruz interview. Cruz dropped the "psychopath" label almost immediately because it creates a separation between normal gun owners and what he wants to sell as the anomalies we can see coming. It's not that simple. But If that's the hill they want to die on, then people should be pissed off at law enforcement for not doing their job when all these red flags popped up, but instead Ted's out there backing the blue at a time when all they did was what they are hired and trained to do. Sure, the 18 year old can be described as a psychopath, but said psychopath was still able to purchase a gun so if you want to go down that road than be prepared for the follow-up of what the hell are you going to do about it? These "psychopaths" can purchase a gun with little to no effort besides a credit card and ID. Why not advocate for changes to the background process, longer wait times, age requirement changes or any other factors that increase the likelihood of preventing "psychopaths" from purchasing a firearm instead of avoiding discussing guns or deflecting that talk of gun law changes is political? Well, because these fucks are interested in self preservation of only one thing, their power and they know they will lose money and possibly votes if they even speak a word about doing anything gun related. And why is that? Because the people you want me to listen to and who are feigning honest dialogue are trying to inform people about the correct way to refer to certain types of firearms.

In what other profession, industry or field do we cater to this type of bullshit when it relates to preventing loss of life or severe injury? If my kid died in a car accident because the car seat I put them in was defective or made wrong, would the company tell me I wasn't describing the features of their car seat correctly when I said something needed to change or demanded higher standards for production? No, because they would know that the consumers of their product would no longer support them and they would go bankrupt or be held liable in court. Yes, I get it, guns are doing what they were made to do, kill, so in theory we should be applauding the manufacturers for creating these flawless tools of carnage. We should all be proud that 18 year old boys lacking a fully developed frontal lobe have the legal right to purchase as many AR-15's as they want, but yet we don't want them drinking alcohol legally and in most states they can't even smoke marijuana because drugs and alcohol bad, guns good.

I can't have this conversation with a gun advocate if they want to try and make it all about terminology. It doesn't have to be that way. Why aren't they super pissed? Why don't they reach out to their local elected official and demand change? Is it because they value owning a firearm over saving a life? It sure comes across that way. Be the change you want to see in the world. I grew up around guns and my family owned about 100 various firearms. I shot some sort of gun almost every day from the time I was 7 until I was 18. I carried a gun for my profession for 4 years. I was proficient and understand the differences in the types of firearms being mentioned, but I also know some people aren't, but that's not a sticking point when it comes to talking about ways to improve gun safety and the culture of guns in this country. I abhor guns besides those used to hunt with. We have been programmed to fear being attacked, fear being taken advantage of and fear the "other", but what are we really trying to protect with a gun in most cases? Property. A phone, a car, cash. Things that are replaceable. Our right to bear arms does not need to be so complicated. There can be compromises to what we as a country believe should be available to the citizenry without banning guns completely. We have restrictions and laws in place around every other aspect of what is acceptable to be a human being, and yes, there will always be people who break those laws and find ways around these systems, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do something because it won't be 100% effective.

Anyway, I just want change. I want the GOP to come forward and recognize this is a bigger problem than just mental illness and that guns are a part of the problem and decide to do something about it.