To people not stuck in right-wing echo chambers, there is no debate.
People are dying. And this happens over and over and over and over.
There is only one sane response: gun control. Now. End of debate.
The debate would be on what measures should be taken...not whether something should be done.
Unless you think a bill that reads "Gun Control. Now" is an appropriate legislative response.
__________________ I am in love with Montana. For other states I have admiration, respect, recognition, even some affection, but with Montana it is love." - John Steinbeck
__________________ I am in love with Montana. For other states I have admiration, respect, recognition, even some affection, but with Montana it is love." - John Steinbeck
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Displaced Flames fan For This Useful Post:
Disgusting human being this guy was, even before the Texas church killings.
__________________
But living an honest life - for that you need the truth. That's the other thing I learned that day, that the truth, however shocking or uncomfortable, leads to liberation and dignity. -Ricky Gervais
would have been denied a firearms license in canada for a multitude of violations.
He would have been not able to purchase the guns he used in the states if the Air Force correctly entered the information in a federal database.
Quote:
While in Colorado and Texas, Mr. Kelley purchased a number of guns at gun stores, according to law enforcement officials. On Monday, the Air Force admitted that it had failed to enter information from Mr. Kelley’s domestic violence court-martial into a federal database that could have blocked him from buying the weapon used in the church attack.
We also might have a person who killed in the name of atheism.
Quote:
He was always talking about how people who believe in God were stupid and trying to preach his atheism,” one of his Facebook friends, Nina Rosa Nava, posted on the site, saying she unfriended him because of it.
Personally I cant see any use for any magazine of any capacity, I cant see any reason that a citizen might actually need a gun, hunting, self defense, target shooting or boring workmates at the company BBQ that an old fashioned 5 round stripper clip wont cover perfectly well.
I absolutely love the non firearm owning facet of discussion boards coming out every time to claim they know everything better than anybody else. I can't think of a more ego-centric group of people, and yes that includes the "gun nuts" you guys love to hate.
I again, extend my offer for firearms familiarity gatherings, to anyone who would like to know about actual function, classifications, restrictions, definitions, handling, storage, laws, usage, history, etc. The same one from a couple years ago that fell on silent ears.
I think a little bit of get to know guns is what some of you actually need. Then we can move on from discussion of what magazine capacity is best (hint, it doesn't matter), what is a stripper clip (oh, a speed reloader for WW1/2 rifles!), what is a machine gun (another hint, not something anyone can carry into 7-11), how fast can you fire a bolt rifle, why can I fit 14 9mm rounds into a 10 round restricted .40 magazine and legally use it, what does AR actually mean, what classifies something as an assault rifle, etc etc etc.
My hope, is that with a little knowledge maybe the discussion would be a little more realistic, educated, and accurate. A little understanding goes a long way.
As an aside, on this topic, most churches are "non carry" zones, if you recall that was also the case in the Colorado theater shooting. So that kind of makes the point most of you are making about CC users mute, as this would not be statistically bearing on whether it was effective. My personal opinion would be that yes, there would have been intervention at some point had that restriction not been in place.
EDIT: I want to add I'm all for licencing just like I'm required here in Canada, before anyone gets on my back about it. But as noted above, thats only as powerful as the reporting in place that supports it
^There are some weapons that are only designed for one purpose: to kill people. Some of those weapons are designed for only one additional reason: to kill a lot of people quickly.
Good for you that you like your guns and know a lot about them. But I don't need to talk to a car expert if I want to discuss the speed limit, particularly a condescending one.
The Following User Says Thank You to Red Slinger For This Useful Post:
Why do gun owners always condemn non gun owners about not knowing the finer details of guns when trying to discuss a glaring need for more gun control in the US? I don't get it.
Why do gun owners always condemn non gun owners about not knowing the finer details of guns when trying to discuss a glaring need for more gun control in the US? I don't get it.
^There are some weapons that are only designed for one purpose: to kill people. Some of those weapons are designed for only one additional reason: to kill a lot of people quickly.
Good for you that you like your guns and know a lot about them. But I don't need to talk to a car expert if I want to discuss the speed limit, particularly a condescending one.
If you’re going to discuss specific restrictions and that certain aspects or accessories make a firearm more dangerous, then you should know what you’re talking about. How can you say that there should be magazine restrictions when you lack an understanding of what a magazine is and how they function?
The suppressor debate is a prime example of this. People who have never shot a suppressed firearm or been around them making claims when their knowledge on the subject comes from seeing one in a movie or parroting what ignorant legislators say on TV.
Yeah, the stripper clip comment was good for a chuckle. That'll slow em down.
You mean I don't have to drop mags now? Sweet!
The comment about the US turning into Russia was kind of sad/comical as well now, since the new info about this asshat came out. Who knew ineffectual bureaucracy could cost lives? Parallel drawn!
Why do gun owners always condemn non gun owners about not knowing the finer details of guns when trying to discuss a glaring need for more gun control in the US? I don't get it.
I also see this argument thrown around all the time " well if your going to ban guns better ban cars too, or spoons because obesity kills more people then gun violence.".
Much like the shift in attitude towards racism, gays and tobacco in the western world, there needs to be an attitude shift regardung guns in America. Until the attitude shift happens, no legislation will be passed.
A group as powerful as the NRA would need to be formed, and run ad campaigns for a generation to begin this necessary shift in attitudes. The NRA has done a fantastic job convincing people that guns are essential for safety and liberty.
If they start now, maybe 40 years from now people will be ashamed to admit their dad had an AR15 at home (designed for killing humans) much like people these days are embarrassed about their racist grandma.
I absolutely love the non firearm owning facet of discussion boards coming out every time to claim they know everything better than anybody else. I can't think of a more ego-centric group of people, and yes that includes the "gun nuts" you guys love to hate.
I again, extend my offer for firearms familiarity gatherings, to anyone who would like to know about actual function, classifications, restrictions, definitions, handling, storage, laws, usage, history, etc. The same one from a couple years ago that fell on silent ears.
I think a little bit of get to know guns is what some of you actually need. Then we can move on from discussion of what magazine capacity is best (hint, it doesn't matter), what is a stripper clip (oh, a speed reloader for WW1/2 rifles!), what is a machine gun (another hint, not something anyone can carry into 7-11), how fast can you fire a bolt rifle, why can I fit 14 9mm rounds into a 10 round restricted .40 magazine and legally use it, what does AR actually mean, what classifies something as an assault rifle, etc etc etc.
My hope, is that with a little knowledge maybe the discussion would be a little more realistic, educated, and accurate. A little understanding goes a long way.
As an aside, on this topic, most churches are "non carry" zones, if you recall that was also the case in the Colorado theater shooting. So that kind of makes the point most of you are making about CC users mute, as this would not be statistically bearing on whether it was effective. My personal opinion would be that yes, there would have been intervention at some point had that restriction not been in place.
EDIT: I want to add I'm all for licencing just like I'm required here in Canada, before anyone gets on my back about it. But as noted above, thats only as powerful as the reporting in place that supports it
I would like to do what is necessary to significantly reduce the killing capacity of the average American citizen while still allowing for target shooting and hunting.
So when a person says ban assault rifles they really mean ban the guns people are using to perpetrate these attacks. Instead of Snark and Correction perhaps you could explain a gun law and what could be banned to reduce killing capacity.
When non gun users are advocating banning things it is really saying limit killing capacity. So as an expert you can fill in the details
Last edited by GGG; 11-08-2017 at 04:38 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
Why do gun owners always condemn non gun owners about not knowing the finer details of guns when trying to discuss a glaring need for more gun control in the US? I don't get it.
Because its a reasonable request to know what you're talking about if you're trying to influence the interests of other groups. As was said in a different comment, the media perpetuates these stereotypes, and next thing you know people are all up in arms about "high capacity clips" and "military assault rifles", and then someone parrots how "low capacity stripper clips" are maybe ok, or anything that remotely looks like its not made of wood is a tool of war and destruction. All I'm saying is to form a factual opinion on something you're not maybe familiar with, some research and understanding would make people realize that nearly EVERY firearm has roots to ones that people feel are non threatening.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
I would like to do what is necessary to significantly reduce the killing capacity of the average American citizen while still allowing for target shooting and hunting.
So when a person says ban assault rifles they really mean ban the guns people are using to perpetrate these attacks. Instead of Snark and Correction perhaps you could explain a gun law and what could be banned to reduce killing capacity.
When non gun users are advocating banning things it is really saying limit killing capacity. So as an expert you can fill in the details
I can, no snark intended by any means, but if you read the responses in this thread, everyone gets ridiculously emotional and comments come off the cuff about full scorched earth gun control, and I would hazard that 85% of those are completely blind, uneducated and non thought out responses.
I hunt, I shoot for fun, I own firearms because they are truly fascinating in history, in function, and variables and design, etc. There is no reason to demonize the tool, and completely ignore the root cause. You can't have everyone rolling around in bubble wrap because someone might trip and get hurt.
Deal with socioeconomics, deal with mental health, deal with better reporting and backgrounding, don't pain every single firearm and owner as a villian because of what we choose to be interested in. People would benefit so much more from the ground level support opposed to restricting everyone by the actions of a few.
Gun laws still don't prevent murder. MURDER is against the law. ASSAULT is against the law. ROBBERY is against the law. You don't see anyone thinking twice about breaking those, so tell me what potential or intended murderer is going to second guess his actions based on unlawfully acquired firearms? And you better believe that happens here as well, there are more unregistered, prohibited, restricted, etc firearms out in public areas than most people here would be comfortable with, in cars, carried, in houses with other CRIMINAL FACTIONS that have zero regard for the law.
Backgrounding is effective at reducing bad firearms owners, but nothing is perfect. The interview on the phone my parents received from the RCMP on my background and headspace was quite in depth. So much so I got a call from my father afterwards to discuss how hard they were pressing to find any flaws. That same process goes to your spouse, or ex, room mates, etc. Its not perfect, but its again only as effective as those that report it (ie: this last guys spotty past of abuse, etc). Sometimes, some people just snap as well, not everyone is predictable, and not everyone has warning signs. I deal with mental health issues every single day at work, the entire spectrum of them.
Its a sad, tragic event that happened, we can all agree on that. But again, lets focus on the fact that this guy had issues. Hey, he could have run his truck through the front doors as well, and before anyone shrugs that off, its reality.
Backgrounding is effective at reducing bad firearms owners, but nothing is perfect. The interview on the phone my parents received from the RCMP on my background and headspace was quite in depth. So much so I got a call from my father afterwards to discuss how hard they were pressing to find any flaws. That same process goes to your spouse, or ex, room mates, etc. Its not perfect, but its again only as effective as those that report it (ie: this last guys spotty past of abuse, etc). Sometimes, some people just snap as well, not everyone is predictable, and not everyone has warning signs. I deal with mental health issues every single day at work, the entire spectrum of them.
Its a sad, tragic event that happened, we can all agree on that. But again, lets focus on the fact that this guy had issues. Hey, he could have run his truck through the front doors as well, and before anyone shrugs that off, its reality.
Okay. So you're saying that backgrounding is effective, but not perfect - so why is it so difficult to even pass THAT law in the USA?
Have you felt that having a relatively intrusive background test has in any way restricted your enjoyment of your firearms?
Also your truck analogy isn't particularly relevant. If he drove a truck through the front door, we'd be seeing a headline of "Insane person drives truck into church, injuring 2 people and causing thousands in damage." The analogy is crazy because we're talking harm reduction - a crazy guy with a knife will kill 2 people. A crazy guy with a gun will kill 58 and injure 500 more.
Clearly I have no clue about guns, there is obviously no difference at all between the rate of fire and accuracy between the two, its an effing wonder every army in the world went to gas recoil arms in the 50's I would assume as well the bolt gets easier to use as you get into the 40 or 50th round while running around a church head shotting children
Last edited by afc wimbledon; 11-08-2017 at 11:21 PM.
