Ongoing US Mass Shooting Thread

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I very much doubt that there will ever be a change to the 2nd amendment because of the monetary costs to the lobby groups who are supported by the manufacturers.

Right now these lobby groups are intertwinned hand in hand in the political process, they have hand picked candidates who will protect the so called right to bear arms.

On top of that, I doubt that an amendment wouldn't be challenged and stayed by the supreme court.

As well, you would have to completely change the laws that involve guns and gun ownership, you would have to change the laws concerning the use of guns in terms of self defense.

As well, if you introduced a version of gun prohibition, you would create a vast underground black market for firearms .

I'm as anti gun as the next person, I think the vast majority of gun owners that I've met have been clueless when it comes to things like why do you need a assualt rifle, and gun safety.

But its a lot harder then just changing or striking the second ammendment.

Exactly, there are many variables to consider here, not the least of which are implementation and enforcement of laws. So while it's easy to say "ban guns" we have to be able to look past the legislation that would be required to do so and ask the hard questions about enforcement.

CaptainCrunch, obviously you are anti gun, and that's fine, but thank you for at least looking at issues surrounding such drastic legislative change and asking "hey, how do we make this work?"

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

Go tell that to the Supreme Court.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distri...mbia_v._Heller

Hoplophobes always skip over the part where states have defined the militia as able bodied individuals between certain ages.

They also have glossed over the federalist papers where it's laid out very plainly that the right for individuals to own arms. That the militia is made up of separate parts; police, national guard, and the able bodied individual.

I thought the right wing hated the supreme court overuling the constitution? Also when reading that the courts seem to differ between judgements.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

CaptainCrunch, obviously you are anti gun, and that's fine

Actually I think, like myself, he is more anti-idiots with guns.

[2Stonedbirds]

And I think that's something we can all agree on.

[Wormius]

You don't need enough money to enact social change or buy back guns or any of that. You just need enough money to bribe the people with the power to change the constitution. Play the same game the NRA does.

Surely a Bill Gates or Warren Buffett could afford that.

[2Stonedbirds]

An organization headed by Gabby Gifford and her husband Mark Kelly pledged to match the 20 million spent by the NRA in 2012. Bloomberg put 50 million towards his anti gun campaigning.

Oddly enough, Bloomberg actually likes guns. He has armed security 24/7. So, guns are ok for him and his security, but not the rest of the serfs.

The money to 'combat' the NRA is there, it is however, ineffectual as Americans value their rights.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

An organization headed by Gabby Gifford and her husband Mark Kelly pledged to match the 20 million spent by the NRA in 2012. Bloomberg put 50 million towards his anti gun campaigning.

Oddly enough, Bloomberg actually likes guns. He has armed security 24/7. So, guns are ok for him and his security, but not the rest of the serfs.

The money to 'combat' the NRA is there, it is however, ineffectual as Americans value their rights.

Weird. The internet just told me that the NRA spent almost 300 million bucks in 2013, although I didn't see the 2012 numbers that you are referring to. 2013 must have been a hell of a year!

[2Stonedbirds]

Yeah I was going by numbers provided by huffington post.

Seeing as they are wrong on everything gun related, it was probably my first mistake. Chances are it was more? I'm not sure.

Pretty sad that the defense of the 2nd amd is left to lobby groups, to protect it from politicians.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

An organization headed by Gabby Gifford and her husband Mark Kelly pledged to match the 20 million spent by the NRA in 2012. Bloomberg put 50 million towards his anti gun campaigning.

Oddly enough, Bloomberg actually likes guns. He has armed security 24/7. So, guns are ok for him and his security, but not the rest of the serfs.

The money to 'combat' the NRA is there, it is however, ineffectual as Americans value their rights.

Where did you get the idea that he actually likes guns? Jesus, he's worth $35 billion, He banned handguns in NYC, he's fighting NRA members for national gun control do you think he should have MMA fighters or Ninja's for his security?

Amazing.

[2Stonedbirds]

So his life is worth protecting with firearms because he's rich and because of public policy he enacted, but the regular Joes life isn't worth that kind of protection?

I thought the general consensus was that firearms make for poor defence?

Pure elitism.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

So his life is worth protecting with firearms because he's rich and because of public policy he enacted, but the regular Joes life isn't worth that kind of protection?

I thought the general consensus was that firearms make for poor defence?

Pure elitism.

You don't think it matters who carries the guns?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

So his life is worth protecting with firearms because he's rich and because of public policy he enacted, but the regular Joes life isn't worth that kind of protection?

I thought the general consensus was that firearms make for poor defence?

Pure elitism.

No one ever said no guns at all under any circumstances. People just want stricter gun control.

Limiting certain types of fire arms to specially trained and bonded people (like police or highly trained security personnel) isn't anymore elitist that only letting people with driver's licenses drive cars or trained people operate airplanes.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

So his life is worth protecting with firearms because he's rich and because of public policy he enacted, but the regular Joes life isn't worth that kind of protection?

I thought the general consensus was that firearms make for poor defence?

Pure elitism.

Fire arms make for a poor defense among the uninitiated or improperly trained.

I'm sure that these armed body guards have either served in a military or police function where they've not only been trained in fire arm use and safety but in situational use. And they've had years of training, not a weekend training at a dude ranch where they plink garbage cans on full auto.

They've also had to probably go through a battery of psychological and stress training and taken private security courses and gotten lots of refreshers.

Let me put it this way. For the average Joe who buys a weapon for home defense it changes the mindset. You put a gun in somebodies hands in an uncertain situation and chances are they are going to go towards trouble and not away from it. "Don't worry honey, I'll go check out that noise in the basement", instead of the mindset being, there's a noise in the basement, lets get out of the house and let the trained police investigate.

Putting a gun into the hands of a partially trained or quickly trained or not even trained person is bad, especially in a situation that has unknown variables, like fear, adrenaline, enclosed sight lines and a hero complex.

I think that guns are the worst thing for self defense because it overwhelms the discretionary aspect of self defense, which is to clear the area with threats instead of confronting threats.

I think the idea of arming teachers (NRA) and putting improperly trained armed people into what are essentially combat situations is an incredibly poor idea.

I think the right to carry fire arms is a poor idea (The Colorado theatre shootings probably would have been worse if a bunch of idiots would have pulled their guns and started blazing away with zero to poor training.

The old saying is that guns don't kill people, people kill people is true, especially with people with the best intentions.

If you want proper gun control in the absence of changing the second amendment you do a requirements shift. If you want to buy a gun for self defense you have to take stringent mental health and stress testing with a 100% pass requirement. You have to take a 6 month course that covers not only gun awareness and safety but situational training and at the end of it you have to look a dog in the face and shoot it to show you what happens when you make a bad decision (kind of kidding on the last one). and every year you have to go through the same testing and refreshers.

If you want a carry permit then the training and testing is even tougher.

and you have to buy insurance to cover death and injury caused by your fire arm. That also covers if your gun is stolen and used which would also cost wise disqualify you from replacing the gun.

It would also be nice if you had to submit a ammunition usage report before you could buy new bullets.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

and you have to buy insurance to cover death and injury caused by your fire arm. That also covers if your gun is stolen and used which would also cost wise disqualify you from replacing the gun.

It seems a no-brainer that home insurance and life insurance rates would be affected by the presence of guns in the home. Presumably, that's not the case in the U.S.?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

It seems a no-brainer that home insurance and life insurance rates would be affected by the presence of guns in the home. Presumably, that's not the case in the U.S.?

Not that I've seen.

But my view point is that if you own a gun you should have to add that gun to your home owners insurance and it actually increases your premiums to cover if you use said gun and cause harm to anybody.

If you choose to carry a gun on your person then you should actually have a separate gun insurance so if you stupidly blaze off in public the people that you hurt or kill or the damage that you do can be covered.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Not that I've seen.

But my view point is that if you own a gun you should have to add that gun to your home owners insurance and it actually increases your premiums to cover if you use said gun and cause harm to anybody.

If you choose to carry a gun on your person then you should actually have a separate gun insurance so if you stupidly blaze off in public the people that you hurt or kill or the damage that you do can be covered.

I would like to respond to your earlier post when I have a little bit more time Captain Crunch, I cant do it in 5 minutes. You make some excellent points and while I disagree with some of it I also agree with much of it.

When it comes to this point, I've seen it come up a few times and been propagated that insanely high insurance rates need to be imposed on firearms owners, and as far as I can tell the sentiment seems to be derived from making it so cost prohibitive that only your elites such as Bloomberg can even afford it.

While I can't make claims on what insurance may or may not cost Americans, for me up here this is the kind of coverage I have.

Through my gun range I have a 20$ yearly fee that covers 10$ million in PLPD. Doesn't matter what happens.

Through an organization I belong to I have as part of my membership, 5$ million of liability coverage for ANY claim for 10$ a year.

Why so low? Because at least here in Canada, the shooting sports have proven to be one of the safest sports in the Country. Now these stats may surprise you (they surprised me) that A: In Canada, the incident and injury rate is much, much lower than any other sport or hobby. It's lower than hockey. (not really surprising)

What is surprising, is that in Canada, the shooting sports have a higher participation rate per capita than hockey. I know, I didn't believe it either but stats can tells me so.

Our sport/hobby/heritage is safe, the problem is criminals who are neither involved in the shooting sports, hunting, or consider firearms ownership part of their heritage, go off and murder people or commit crimes with firearms. Because of these a-holes, the rest of us should not suffer. Which is 100% who the firearms control laws are aimed at; the law abiding. Because we are the only group of people willing to abide by those laws as to not become criminals ourselves.

Anyways, I will address your excellent points later after dinner and when I have a little more time.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

So his life is worth protecting with firearms because he's rich and because of public policy he enacted, but the regular Joes life isn't worth that kind of protection?

I thought the general consensus was that firearms make for poor defence?

Pure elitism.

Oh boy

If you don't see the difference I can't help you.

[pylon]

Very compelling argument I am sure all the gun supporters will dismiss. It doesn't get any more simple than this article.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/27/op...nce/index.html

[T@T]

Originally Posted by pylon

Very compelling argument I am sure all the gun supporters will dismiss. It doesn't get any more simple than this article.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/27/op...nce/index.html

And from the article: "Lax gun control in one nation can create problems in another"

Like the thousands of smuggled handguns coming to Canada every year.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

Yeah I was going by numbers provided by huffington post.

Seeing as they are wrong on everything gun related, it was probably my first mistake. Chances are it was more? I'm not sure.

Pretty sad that the defense of the 2nd amd is left to lobby groups, to protect it from politicians.

How about the right of freedom from mentally unstable nutcases with guns afforded by the 2A?
Who's lobbying for that?