TX - Santa Fe High School Shooting

[Inv4drZm]

I thought you were talking about the wars?

I'm just trying to say when people think the U.S. citizens wouldn't stand a chance against their own military's tanks and drones:

1.) They admit that the military could potentially turn on it's citizens but they still don't want protection? That is exactly why we need firearms!

2.) Look at our recent past conflicts, it basically spells out how to fight our own military. A militia with strong numbers can do it. It's not far-fetched.

 

[wadle5]

Interesting interpretation of the data. So if it’s a head/heart problem, what’s your solution for something like that? Or are you happy enough with saying, it’s not guns... don’t touch the guns?

Vegas, Sandy Hook, Stoneman Douglas, Dallas, Boulder, and a ton of of other places that we no longer recognize or remember happened with legally purchased firearms. The ultra right likes to say, no gun law could have prevented this... isn’t that a problem?

This is the problem when this discussion comes up is conclusions are drawn preemptively. Your statement of “you are just happy with saying its not guns don’t touch guns”.
Unfortunately your mind is made up and it is no longer a discussion.
A weapon is a tool and not an issue for 99% of its users. Unfortunately 1% makes it an issue. Just like FORD and GMC cant stop people from killing people with their cars. I mean think about it...over 250hp..over 6 tons...can go over 100 mph...its an assault vehicle at that point and not necessary. No one needs MORE horsepower, no one needs to go over 65 mph?!

The so called “people killer” weapon people are obsessed with actually has had less deaths than people using hammers/blunt objects/fists. So how do we ban those tools, because they are deadly? But yet you probably have all of those in your house don’t you and its not an issued.
So, to clarify: I would favor banning all hammers (claw, ball-peen, sledge, upholstery, etc.) that can be used to kill 59 people and injure another 500 in a crowd in less than 15 minutes. I also would support the banning of any devices that enable someone to modify a hammer in such a way that it could do that sort of damage. I am fine with keeping all other hammers even knowing that some of them will be used to do violence.

Furthermore and we wont go down the hot button route of abortion and how many KIDS are killed a year, because thats what this is about. . .the kids after all right? Specifically kids getting murdered?
Because the reality is facts are based on truth and until we as a country can except truth you aren’t going to change a thing.

 

[-JD-]

@-JD-

The problem with your chart showing gun deaths in Austrailia in late 80s vs now trending downward is the concept of correlation not causation. This is a constant limitation of so called Social 'Science'.

If you look at gun deaths and overall violent crime in the United States from the late 80s until 2018 you will see a similar or even more drastic trend downwards. There was no "total gun ban" in the United States yet violent crime including gun murders trended downward just as sharply or even more so.

:fishing:

Yea, not a position I haven't heard before (as can be said about nearly every point made in this thread so far, a major reason I've tried to stay out of it). While true things were trending downward in a general sense over the course of several decades what would it take to prove some effect? Would the rate have to drop to zero? How dramatic of a shift in the downward trend would constitute an effect? So many other issues to consider as well when looking at a that long a time period. A lot has changed in that time. Considering that a stat like that will likely never reach zero the downward trend will obviously not continue forever which should be considered as well.

It's a messy issue to try to find really compelling evidence to support either position. Gun homicides were down significantly though, and while some will say that people will find other means I can't help but feel these type of mass murder events would be reduced.

 

[Inv4drZm]

Gun homicides were down significantly though, and while some will say that people will find other means I can't help but feel these type of mass murder events would be reduced.

Reducing my protection and rights of every citizen is not an acceptable way to potentially reduce mass murder events.

 

[simple]

This is the problem....

I mean, isn’t the pot calling the kettle black? Your mind is just as made up as mine. There’s nothing I can say that will change your point of view. And I think you misunderstand my point of view. I’m a gun owner and am pro guns.

No reasonable American wants to ban all guns, it’s against our Constitution and ethos. The left wing nuts who call for that are just as crazy imo as the people who are so pro gun that they’re not willing to entertain any opposing view point.

All these social media echo chambers and ability for people to disregard opposing view points as left/right side garbage and ‘fake news’ is disturbing.

As far as abortion... Give this an honest look, and let me know what you think

 

[BackOff]

Too funny...Abandon all hope.


I am thinking a big asteroid impact is sounding better and better.

 

[Inv4drZm]

I mean, isn’t the pot calling the kettle black? Your mind is just as made up as mine. There’s nothing I can say that will change your point of view. And I think you misunderstand my point of view. I’m a gun owner and am pro guns.

No reasonable American wants to ban all guns, it’s against our Constitution and ethos. The left wing nuts who call for that are just as crazy imo as the people who are so pro gun that they’re not willing to entertain any opposing view point.

All these social media echo chambers and ability for people to disregard opposing view points as left/right side garbage and ‘fake news’ is disturbing.

As far as abortion... Give this an honest look, and let me know what you think

Citizens in the U.K. and Australia no longer can carry or own knives. It isn't about stopping mass shootings, knives can't do that, it's about controlling the population. Give them 1 inch and they will never stop taking away our rights. They say that's all they want but they will move onto the next thing. Just like gay marriage. If somebody could prove to me through use of a time machine that by simply giving up AR-15's and only AR-15's will make America completely void of crime for the next century I would gladly give mine away. Anything short of that no.

You don't think that there is the same thing with women getting coerced into having an abortion when they don't want to? It happens on both ends.

 

[simple]

Bro, you’re arguing with yourself. I don’t think you’re actually reading my post... but maybe I’m just not communicating clearly in my posts because you’re just circling my point. This give them an inch they’ll take a mile attitude is exactly why our political ‘party over country’ situation is so ****ed.

Thanks for giving the opportunity to change your mind via a time machine. How novel and adult of you.

You don't think that there is the same thing with women getting coerced into having an abortion when they don't want to? It happens on both ends.

Fair point, there could definitely be some gov subsidizing based on patient reporting. But I think the answer here is that is super ****ed up. Not, the other side does it too, dude. And to clarify, not that you shouldn't point out the other side, but just making an excuse that both sides do it, if thats true.

 

[RCFJ]

Reducing my protection and rights of every citizen is not an acceptable way to potentially reduce mass murder events.

You mean that tinfoil hat doesnt protect you enough?

Little late but read those articles you posted a few pages back and have a couple issues with it.

1. That 500k to 3 million stat of denfensive gun uses sticks out like a sore thumb. A variance of 2.5 million means "we have no clue how many time guns are used defensively" lets make up a number. I read that in the first article and immediately thought well that means nothing. Then the second article you posted aptly titled "The study that gun-rights activists keep citing but completely misunderstand" went on to discuss that very topic of how porous this statistic is.

2. This statistic is not

how many lives are saved by guns vs how many are lost

but is strictly talking about defensive gun uses, which doesn't require using the gun but perhaps is only suggesting they have one and can use it. So we have no idea how many lives were saved. But likely (not fact checked) far less than lives taken with guns.

3. The third article extrapolated 222 instances of defensive gun uses from a poll of 5000 into 2.5 million, yes million per year. That is some solid data manipulation there and likely as accurate as all the polls before the 2016 election.

4. This is funny

Can we play lets make a deal? You keep your guns...all of them, in exchange for Scott Pruitt's head on a spike? :yo:

 

[Bodhi327]

This thead

Everyone of these latest killers where out of their minds and lost. The gun was not the issue, it was the ******* behind it. This time it was a shotgun, not an “assault rifle” with a “bump stop”....2 tag lines being thrown around way to much. A guy moves 30 suitcases into a hotel or kid walks into a school with a gun or in Florida where 50 things where overlooked. Lack of parenting, lack of family, no mental health support ect ect ect, guns will still be around. Clinton did nothing, bush did nothing, Obama ignored everything and trump.. not sure what he can or will do, Time will tell.

 

[Inv4drZm]

Bro, you’re arguing with yourself. I don’t think you’re actually reading my post... but maybe I’m just not communicating clearly in my posts because you’re just circling my point. This give them an inch they’ll take a mile attitude is exactly why our political ‘party over country’ situation is so ****ed.

Thanks for giving the opportunity to change your mind via a time machine. How novel and adult of you.



Fair point, there could definitely be some gov subsidizing based on patient reporting. But I think the answer here is that is super ****ed up. Not, the other side does it too, dude. And to clarify, not that you shouldn't point out the other side, but just making an excuse that both sides do it, if thats true.

We've already given them quite a bit. No fully automatic weapons, background checks for everybody, felons cant own guns, age restrictions, barrel length legislation that does literally nothing, 10rd mags max in some states that does nothing, heck no switchblades in some states, another knee-jerk reaction about gangs. Do you know how pointless that piece of regulation is? Any further bans or regulations of guns will have the same effect, 0.

"Thanks for giving the opportunity to change your mind via a time machine. How novel and adult of you. "

I'm saying I don't care about the political B.S. if you show me evidence of bans working, then I will support them. The exact opposite of what you assume I and others are incapable of. I've showed you reasons why I think it won't work but all you've told me is that I'm wrong for having my mind made up already, and that is the real problem, people not talking it out because they believe the other side won't change, not that other sides won't change. I've spoke my opinion and all you've told me is that we can't talk because I am incapable of changing my mind or even listening. I'm not even sure why we are wasting time with eachother, we are on the 'same side' and arguing semantics right?

I never said it wasn't f'd up that both sides did it did I? We wouldn't need either side if... fill in the blank. That is the real answer. Something about family values probably.

 

[Inv4drZm]

1. That 500k to 3 million stat of denfensive gun uses sticks out like a sore thumb. A variance of 2.5 million means "we have no clue how many time guns are used defensively" lets make up a number. I read that in the first article and immediately thought well that means nothing. Then the second article you posted aptly titled "The study that gun-rights activists keep citing but completely misunderstand" went on to discuss that very topic of how porous this statistic is.

2. This statistic is not but is strictly talking about defensive gun uses, which doesn't require using the gun but perhaps is only suggesting they have one and can use it. So we have no idea how many lives were saved. But likely (not fact checked) far less than lives taken with guns.

I'm glad you actually read them. True, there is no way to measure lives saved vs lives lost. Why would you want to take away a tool somebody could use to defend themselves? 32,000 die a year from guns, mostly gangs, and 60% are suicides, whearas some low estimates say 108,00 defensive uses of firearms or the 500k to 3 million figure I gave you. A lot of times just brandishing a firearm can successfully defend potential victims.

http://jpfo.org/articles-assd03/gun-stats-perspective.htm

 

[RCFJ]

True, there is no way to measure lives saved vs lives lost. Why would you want to take away a tool somebody could use to defend themselves? A lot of times just brandishing a firearm can successfully defend potential victims.

I don't want to take all tools away just some. And if the mere suggestion of a gun works then do you don't need an AR to defend yourself. Own a pistol and tell them(attacker/robber etc) you've got one. Sounds like you would be set especially considering the vast majority of americans go their entire lives without owning one and much less needing to use one in a defensive situation.

 

[Thai]

Nothing will change. The fatass coward clown president will continue sucking NRA dick with all their Russian money. Debating same on this page is also pointless.

Cheers.

Uh oh, one of the (if not the only) main focus of “Russian collusion” witch hunt just got full PERMANENT FBI clearance: https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.1da8908c9490

 

[Inv4drZm]

I don't want to take all tools away just some. And if the mere suggestion of a gun works then do you don't need an AR to defend yourself. Own a pistol and tell them(attacker/robber etc) you've got one. Sounds like you would be set especially considering the vast majority of americans go their entire lives without owning one and much less needing to use one in a defensive situation.

Even if just removing AR-15s will reduce mass shootings, (it wont the last shooting was done with a revolver and a shotgun). it will have no effect on general homicides because the vast majority of those are done by handguns. If you really want to stop crime you should be looking at handguns.

I have no faith that the politicians can write a piece of legislation that only bans AR-15s. AR-15s are manufactured by a ton of companies, have multiple calibers, and can operate by direct impengment or piston operated actions. I'm not sure it's possible to ban AR-15s and if it was I'm sure California would have already done it. They do however have a ban on what they spell out as 'assault weapons" which is utterly ridiculous and pointless: there are pretty easy workarounds to still own AR-15s.

30510, “assault weapon” also means any of the following:

(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that does not have a fixed magazine but has any one of the following:

(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.

(B) A thumbhole stock.

(C) A folding or telescoping stock.

(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.

(E) A flash suppressor.

(F) A forward pistol grip.

(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

(3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.

(4) A semiautomatic pistol that does not have a fixed magazine but has any one of the following:

(A) A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer.

(B) A second handgrip.

(C) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon without burning the bearer’s hand, except a slide that encloses the barrel.

(D) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.

(5) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

(6) A semiautomatic shotgun that has both of the following:

(A) A folding or telescoping stock.

(B) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, thumbhole stock, or vertical handgrip.

(7) A semiautomatic shotgun that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine.

(8) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

(b) For purposes of this section, “fixed magazine” means an ammunition feeding device contained in, or permanently attached to, a firearm in such a manner that the device cannot be removed without disassembly of the firearm action.

(c) The Legislature finds a significant public purpose in exempting from the definition of “assault weapon” pistols that are designed expressly for use in Olympic target shooting events. Therefore, those pistols that are sanctioned by the International Olympic Committee and by USA Shooting, the national governing body for international shooting competition in the United States, and that were used for Olympic target shooting purposes as of January 1, 2001, and that would otherwise fall within the definition of “assault weapon” pursuant to this section are exempt, as provided in subdivision (d).

(d) “Assault weapon” does not include either of the following:

(1) Any antique firearm.

(2) Any of the following pistols, because they are consistent with the significant public purpose expressed in subdivision (c):

 

[simple]

[MENTION=130999]Inv4drZm[/MENTION] I agree that banning ARs aren’t feasible. Although I don’t think I’d be against it. But regardless, I also agree politicians don’t really know the details behind weapon systems, which might be why the loop holes you talk about exist. I also think those loop holes exist because of the gun lobby and probably a little bit of compromise on both sides when the legislation went through.

If it were up to me, I’d ban high capacity magazines and crush gun owners who’s kids got their weapons and shot up whoever.

I get reloading an AR style weapon takes but a second if you practice. But coming to the fight with 6 30rd magazines is not crazy. But having 18 10rd magazines on your body is.

And lastly, being a responsible gun owner means you’re responsible for securing it and making sure it’s only used for responsible reasons.

 

[ndcent]

[MENTION=130999]Inv4drZm[/MENTION] I agree that banning ARs aren’t feasible. Although I don’t think I’d be against it. But regardless, I also agree politicians don’t really know the details behind weapon systems, which might be why the loop holes you talk about exist. I also think those loop holes exist because of the gun lobby and probably a little bit of compromise on both sides when the legislation went through.

If it were up to me, I’d ban high capacity magazines and crush gun owners who’s kids got their weapons and shot up whoever.

I get reloading an AR style weapon takes but a second if you practice. But coming to the fight with 6 30rd magazines is not crazy. But having 18 10rd magazines on your body is.

And lastly, being a responsible gun owner means you’re responsible for securing it and making sure it’s only used for responsible reasons.

Prepare to have these reasonable suggestions argued away by the cousin kissing cold dead hands set.

 

[RCFJ]

[MENTION=130999]Inv4drZm[/MENTION] I agree that banning ARs aren’t feasible. Although I don’t think I’d be against it. But regardless, I also agree politicians don’t really know the details behind weapon systems, which might be why the loop holes you talk about exist. I also think those loop holes exist because of the gun lobby and probably a little bit of compromise on both sides when the legislation went through.

If it were up to me, I’d ban high capacity magazines and crush gun owners who’s kids got their weapons and shot up whoever.

I get reloading an AR style weapon takes but a second if you practice. But coming to the fight with 6 30rd magazines is not crazy. But having 18 10rd magazines on your body is.

And lastly, being a responsible gun owner means you’re responsible for securing it and making sure it’s only used for responsible reasons.

I think common sense and reason like this is all libtards are asking for.

 

[RCFJ]

Since the other thread got closed posting here - [MENTION=2]Thai[/MENTION] I guess that nobel prize is off. Bummer he was just so deserving of it.

 

[Off-choader]

Prepare to have these reasonable suggestions argued away by the cousin kissing cold dead hands set.

Ndcent your input and insults are great even though you never have any input and your insults are regurgitated repeatedly in the off-topic section for the past 5 years.