Ongoing US Mass Shooting Thread

[jayswin]

^^^^^^

I believe whiteowl is very pro-guns. I could be wrong and thinking of someone else, but I think that's his angle in his response.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by jayswin

^^^^^^

I believe whiteowl is very pro-guns. I could be wrong and thinking of someone else, but I think that's his angle in his response.

I am not anti-guns, but I am pro-gun control.

Those things are dangerous.

[llwhiteoutll]

Reasonable regulations that don't make ownership onerous for legal owners.

Unfortunately, because of the general population's lack of familiarity with the law and the willingness of the media and gun control groups to not report facts or outright lie, this can't happen.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

Reasonable regulations that don't make ownership onerous for legal owners.

Unfortunately, because of the general population's lack of familiarity with the law and the willingness of the media and gun control groups to not report facts or outright lie, this can't happen.

Did you take that from the NRA propaganda training?
what do you call onerous? anything more than nothing?

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

Reasonable regulations that don't make ownership onerous for legal owners.

I actually think that gun ownership should be onerous. We aren't talking sling shots or spit balls. See guns are dangerous, I know the old line of guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Guns, IMO, should be difficult to get. Guns in the US are far too easy to acquire.

Unfortunately, because of the general population's lack of familiarity with the law and the willingness of the media and gun control groups to not report facts or outright lie, this can't happen.

I would suggest that by trying to discount the number of mass shootings in the US, by using a criteria to discredit the actual number is well, a "lie".

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

Did you take that from the NRA propaganda training?
what do you call onerous? anything more than nothing?

Anything that doesn't actually improve safety or isn't based on fact shoyld be considered onerous.

A lot of what people what to see implemented could fall into this category. The manipulation of the definition of an assault weapon by US state governments is a prime example of this.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

Anything that doesn't actually improve safety or isn't based on fact shoyld be considered onerous.

A lot of what people what to see implemented could fall into this category. The manipulation of the definition of an assault weapon by US state governments is a prime example of this.

right, so exactly like I said, anything more than nothing is considered onerous.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

Anything that doesn't actually improve safety or isn't based on fact shoyld be considered onerous.

A lot of what people what to see implemented could fall into this category. The manipulation of the definition of an assault weapon by US state governments is a prime example of this.

Wait don't lose focus.


Can you explain why you don't want to use the Shooting Tracker definition of a mass shooting?

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I actually think that gun ownership should be onerous. We aren't talking sling shots or spit balls. See guns are dangerous, I know the old line of guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Guns, IMO, should be difficult to get. Guns in the US are far too easy to acquire.



I would suggest that by trying to discount the number of mass shootings in the US, by using a criteria to discredit the actual number is well, a "lie".

So then background checks or licensing should be the goal. Not tryito ban things based on appearance or accessories.

I'd also argue that the government is the best body to maintain and record statistics. Shooting tracker is a crowd sourced body that aggregates data and performs their own interpretation. If anything, both sets of data should be presented side by side and the differences shown.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

right, so exactly like I said, anything more than nothing is considered onerous.

So you feel that having a law that does not improve safety, but sounds good, is a good idea?

Licensing improves safety. A background check or license check at purchase improves safety. A required safe handling course improves safety.

Requiring standard magazines to be pinned at 1/6 capacity does not improve safety. Prohibiting a piece of safety equipment such as a suppressor does not improve safety.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

So then background checks or licensing should be the goal. Not tryito ban things based on appearance or accessories.

Agreed, but I would suggest that perhaps there should be a sliding scale. A single shot bolt action rifle should be difficult to get, but a magazine fed, semi-auto rifle should require the moving of heaven and earth.

I'd also argue that the government is the best body to maintain and record statistics. Shooting tracker is a crowd sourced body that aggregates data and performs their own interpretation. If anything, both sets of data should be presented side by side and the differences shown.

I would be happy to read a detailed post from you outlining the differences between the two sources of mass shootings.

From what I can tell the FBI requires deaths shooting tracker doesn't. It needs 4 people hit by bullets, you know, shot.

[Coach]

Funny how the government's word is oak when using easily refuted statistics based on arbitrary lines in the sand for what a "mass" shooting is, like it makes a difference if one person is killed by a crazy person with a weapon or 10. Isn't this whole argument built on the idea that you CAN'T trust the government? There is absolutely no way the huge dollars of the NRA had some sway in what the definition of what "mass" means. Not at all.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

So then background checks or licensing should be the goal. Not tryito ban things based on appearance or accessories.

why? Holmes and Lanza used high powered weapons that are designed to do the most damage. people who lived through the colorado shooting but were hit, were hit by a weapon that is designed to be used by the military in wars, yet you can pick them up at walmart in the states. Don't try to tell us they are just scary looking, they are designed for maximum damage.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

why? Holmes and Lanza used high powered weapons that are designed to do the most damage. people who lived through the colorado shooting but were hit, were hit by a weapon that is designed to be used by the military in wars, yet you can pick them up at walmart in the states. Don't try to tell us they are just scary looking, they are designed for maximum damage.

No mention of the fact that Lanza was prohibited by law from owning forearms or that he killed his own mother in order to steal her legally owned firearms? The firearms he used were hunting firearms chambered in .223 and 9mm, no more powerful than a bolt action.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

No mention of the fact that Lanza was prohibited by law from owning forearms or that he killed his own mother in order to steal her legally owned firearms? The firearms he used were hunting firearms chambered in .223 and 9mm, no more powerful than a bolt action.

Funny that you're leaving out the part where the AR-15 has a rate of fire 20x faster than a bolt action.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

Licensing improves safety. A background check or license check at purchase improves safety. A required safe handling course improves safety.
.

That's a good start

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

Requiring standard magazines to be pinned at 1/6 capacity does not improve safety. Prohibiting a piece of safety equipment such as a suppressor does not improve safety.

It improves safety for anyone on the wrong end of a mass shooting.

Aside from killing and compensating for lack of something else, what purpose do high powered high capacity rifles have?

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

No mention of the fact that Lanza was prohibited by law from owning forearms or that he killed his own mother in order to steal her legally owned firearms? The firearms he used were hunting firearms chambered in .223 and 9mm, no more powerful than a bolt action.

No mention that his mother left him money to buy himself a gun for xmas.
that right there says america has a gun problem.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by T@T

Funny that you're leaving out the part where the AR-15 has a rate of fire 20x faster than a bolt action.

Dude, don't you know? It takes 3-4 bullets minimum to put a average man down. And even then he may not be dead. If you really want to do some damage, you have to be able to fire off at least 10 rounds a second. That way you can down 10-15 people before the good guy with the gun who is ever present can stop you.

Make sure you bring a knife along with you too. That way, when this argument inevitably rears it's head, you can make sure they don't make laws any stricter, or stop producing these things all together, by showing them that hand held object can also be used as fatal weaponry. Because they're the same.

Originally Posted by DuffMan

Aside from killing and compensating for lack of something else, what purpose do high powered high capacity rifles have?

Ain't gonna let a few dead people get in the way of my good time! Look how fun this is. And harmless too! The bullets passing through this sign at 1000's of ft/second didn't go on to do any more damage other than making these holes. Nope.

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

So you feel that having a law that does not improve safety, but sounds good, is a good idea?

Licensing improves safety. A background check or license check at purchase improves safety. A required safe handling course improves safety.

Requiring standard magazines to be pinned at 1/6 capacity does not improve safety. Prohibiting a piece of safety equipment such as a suppressor does not improve safety.

Please explain how a silencer is a piece of safety equipment.

This is just my personal feeling, and I'm aware this is not held by a great many people. But I can't think of a single non-hunting situation where a civilian needs to be in possession of a firearm.

I cannot imagine a higher stress situation than being in the middle of a mass shooting. And I would guess the guy walking out of the Gap with a glock under his jacket is as poorly equipped to act as a first responder in that situation as I am.

Trained individuals who deal with high stress situations on a daily basis can have guns in public. Nobody else.

'But then only the criminals will have them'. No. Criminals will have them, and the police will have them. The gun is a uniform - I see you with a gun and without a badge, I know you're the enemy.

[afc wimbledon]

the whole mass shooting, AR 15 thing is a bit of a canard though, the vast majority of Americans are killed with a hand gun by their drunk/ depressed recently dumped husband boyfriend etc.

Nothing will alter this short of a massive reduction of guns, all guns, in the country.