Mass shootings

[charlie1]

I used to be a hunter and really would not want anyone to stop me from having my hunting guns. I could even see the potential reason for personal handguns for self defense. BUT I do feel that there needs to be much more control on automatic guns and long range rifles. Why can't our politician see that there are different guns for different purposes and band, or at least strongly control, any weapon that could be used for mass murders! Gun violence has gotten OUT OF CONTROL!

[bob47]

I used to be a hunter and really would not want anyone to stop me from having my hunting guns. I could even see the potential reason for personal handguns for self defense. BUT I do feel that there needs to be much more control on automatic guns and long range rifles. Why can't our politician see that there are different guns for different purposes and band, or at least strongly control, any weapon that could be used for mass murders! Gun violence has gotten OUT OF CONTROL!

The voice of reason.

[JohnN]

I agree with you 100%. Most politicians are bought off and vote their personal interests.

[thevillages2013]

I used to be a hunter and really would not want anyone to stop me from having my hunting guns. I could even see the potential reason for personal handguns for self defense. BUT I do feel that there needs to be much more control on automatic guns and long range rifles. Why can't our politician see that there are different guns for different purposes and band, or at least strongly control, any weapon that could be used for mass murders! Gun violence has gotten OUT OF CONTROL!

There is complete control on automatic weapons. Semi auto different story. What did you hunt with?

[Topspinmo]

There is complete control on automatic weapons. Semi auto different story. What did you hunt with?


BB gun.

[MartinSE]

Well, the problem is the 2nd amendment. There is no way our divide government can make any changes to clarify it. The is debate over the meaning, and the current SCOTUS is not about to take a point of view that favors any controls.

This thread is simply going to circle the same old arguments, and once again nothing will change.

[Tvflguy]

Every “Mass Shooting” someone simply MUST start a thread….

[mtdjed]

Well, the problem is the 2nd amendment. There is no way our divide government can make any changes to clarify it. The is debate over the meaning, and the current SCOTUS is not about to take a point of view that favors any controls.

This thread is simply going to circle the same old arguments, and once again nothing will change.

You're right. But, then again, threads are composed of opinions, and expectations that they will change laws are optimistic. The OP initial comment offers an opinion which is not an extreme but is His. Wouldn't it be interesting to see other opinions? I tend to agree with his.

I was on an educational trip to Cuba several years ago, and our tour guide extolled the fact that Cuba's record regarding gun violence was outstanding because they were not allowed to have guns. My thoughts went to, why no guns. Part of that thought went back to the overthrow of the government (Evil as it was) by an element that took over all and made their own laws for distribution of assets. Were their gun laws made to save people or to protect their existence. Observing the status of Cuba at the time, I had to say I was glad I did not live there. My opinion!

Has nothing to do with 2nd Amendment, or does it? Greater minds than mine have argued for years.

[MartinSE]

You're right. But, then again, threads are composed of opinions, and expectations that they will change laws are optimistic. The OP initial comment offers an opinion which is not an extreme but is His. Wouldn't it be interesting to see other opinions? I tend to agree with his.

I was on an educational trip to Cuba several years ago, and our tour guide extolled the fact that Cuba's record regarding gun violence was outstanding because they were not allowed to have guns. My thoughts went to, why no guns. Part of that thought went back to the overthrow of the government (Evil as it was) by an element that took over all and made their own laws for distribution of assets. Were their gun laws made to save people or to protect their existence. Observing the status of Cuba at the time, I had to say I was glad I did not live there. My opinion!

Has nothing to do with 2nd Amendment, or does it? Greater minds than mine have argued for years.

I guess it depends on peoples positions.

I believe it is pretty much impossible to even consider removing all guns from the US. DUH. 300 million guns can not be collected and disposed of in any reasonable amount of time, no matter how much I would like that. So, a more pragmatic approach to me, is to come to some kind of bi-partisan gun control legislation.

1. Universal background checks with access to mental health history for all purchases private or commercial. Anyone selling a gun with out receiving a background check is charged as accessory if the gun is used in a crime.

2. Cool down period - 48 to 72 hours? Maybe a week?

3. Domestic violence checks.

4. Some form of definition of what kind of guns can be owned. We obviously need to restrict access to cruise missiles, and BB guns are probably not going to make people happy. Some where in the middle we shovel be able to meet.

5. Conviction of a crime where a gun is used results in automatic lifetime ban from owning or possessing.

6. NATIONAL/universal gun control laws. If we have open carry, fine, EVERYONE has open carry.

There are a few ideas. I have more, but those would be a good start. I have mentioned them before also. Most people don't give e reasons, they just make snarky statements - drive by one liners.

[Two Bills]

America'''s gun culture - in seven charts - BBC News (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41488081)

[Reiver]

The Girandoni air rifle was an airgun designed by Tyrolian inventor Bartholomäus Girandoni circa 1779. It was used on the Lewis and Clark Expedition in the early 1800s.
It was capable of discharging it's entire 20 shot capacity in less than 30 seconds.

The first successful design for a semi-automatic rifle is attributed to Austria-born gunsmith Ferdinand Ritter von Mannlicher, who unveiled the design in 1885.

Why are these antique weapons suddenly a modern problem?

[Michael G.]

BB gun.

Please don't get cute, this is a very serious problem.

[ThirdOfFive]

Well, the problem is the 2nd amendment. There is no way our divide government can make any changes to clarify it. The is debate over the meaning, and the current SCOTUS is not about to take a point of view that favors any controls.

This thread is simply going to circle the same old arguments, and once again nothing will change.
Exactly.

Same ol' same ol'. Nothing will change. And media will beat the drum over and over and over ad endless nauseam.

Except that the one thing that NEEDS to change is mentioned in the sentence above. Research has proven, time and time again, that the ONE thing that exacerbates gun violence especially among younger people like no other is the endless, breathless media coverage. Research has proven time and again, particularly with mass shootings but also with individual shootings, that "copycat" shootings are the primary cause of at least 50% of such shootings, probably more. Examples:

"Violent events are often covered by news outlets in great detail and spread immediately through mass media and social media. Experts believe that this media coverage can inspire others to copy these actions or commit similar crimes.[1] This is often called the media contagion effect, and it happens with suicide, terrorist attacks, and mass shootings." (Etc.) "(Does Media Coverage Inspire Copy Cat Mass Shootings?" Pew Research: Alex Pew, Lauren Goldbeck, Caroline Halsted, and Diana Zuckerman, PhD)

"An 18-year-old white man suspected of fatally shooting 10 people in a Black neighborhood in Buffalo, New York, appears to be the latest in a line of "copycat" gunmen carrying out deadlier mass shootings inspired by previous attackers, experts warned on Sunday." (Etc.) ("Copycat' mass shootings becoming deadlier, experts warn after New York attack" Tim Reid and Kanishka Singh, Reuters, May 15, 2022).

The above examples are but two of--perhaps--thousands.

Ironic, isn't it? The ONE provable thing America could do to substantially reduce gun violence, starting today, is the ONE thing media will NOT do. Media, by their incessant over-reporting and and breathless proselytizing over Demon Gun and those who employ them for purposes of murder, will continue to incite more such incidents. Disaffected people will continue to see, read and hear about these killings, and will decide that their 15 minutes of notoriety is a fine way to exit.

And the killings will go on.

Just how much blood is on the hands of American media?

[Taurus510]

I used to be a hunter and really would not want anyone to stop me from having my hunting guns. I could even see the potential reason for personal handguns for self defense. BUT I do feel that there needs to be much more control on automatic guns and long range rifles. Why can't our politician see that there are different guns for different purposes and band, or at least strongly control, any weapon that could be used for mass murders! Gun violence has gotten OUT OF CONTROL!
We’ll, you claim to be an ex-hunter, then follow that up with an ignorant statement about “automatic” weapons. There are already many restrictions on automatic weapons. If you wish to own one, you have to go through an EXTENSIVE background check, the local sheriff has to personally vouch for you, then you will pay thousands just for the license to own an automatic weapon. Are you claiming that you hunted with automatic weapons?

[Wyseguy]

I used to be a hunter and really would not want anyone to stop me from having my hunting guns. I could even see the potential reason for personal handguns for self defense. BUT I do feel that there needs to be much more control on automatic guns and long range rifles. Why can't our politician see that there are different guns for different purposes and band, or at least strongly control, any weapon that could be used for mass murders! Gun violence has gotten OUT OF CONTROL!

Automatic weapons have been illegal for almost 100 Years now.

[Wyseguy]

We’ll, you claim to be an ex-hunter, then follow that up with an ignorant statement about “automatic” weapons. There are already many restrictions on automatic weapons. If you wish to own one, you have to go through an EXTENSIVE background check, the local sheriff has to personally vouch for you, then you will pay thousands just for the license to own an automatic weapon. Are you claiming that you hunted with automatic weapons?

I went through the sheriff interview, having my family and friends interviewed, got the psych eval and finally went before a judge to get a regular carry in NYC. And you are 100% correct about automatic weapons. Been illegal.impossoible for close to 100 years now

[Wyseguy]

The Girandoni air rifle was an airgun designed by Tyrolian inventor Bartholomäus Girandoni circa 1779. It was used on the Lewis and Clark Expedition in the early 1800s.
It was capable of discharging it's entire 20 shot capacity in less than 30 seconds.

The first successful design for a semi-automatic rifle is attributed to Austria-born gunsmith Ferdinand Ritter von Mannlicher, who unveiled the design in 1885.

Why are these antique weapons suddenly a modern problem?

We are not allowed to say.

[Wyseguy]

Please don't get cute, this is a very serious problem.

It is a serious problem that we are not allowed to discuss. Until that changes we will have the problem. Taking guns from law abiding citizens will not solve it.

[Topspinmo]

Automatic weapons have been illegal for almost 100 Years now.

Not illegal in some states. but very very expensive and hard to get permits.

[MartinSE]

It is a serious problem that we are not allowed to discuss. Until that changes we will have the problem. Taking guns from law abiding citizens will not solve it.

This always comes up?

WHO is taken guns from law bidding citizens? I would love it, but even I know that is a none starter. But, people constantly bring it up, fear is a real motivator.

[Topspinmo]

Every “Mass Shooting” someone simply MUST start a thread….

Yes, and some of old same olds have add there 15 posts complementing each other thinking there opinions going to make difference.

[MartinSE]

Automatic weapons have been illegal for almost 100 Years now.

As was pointed out to me in the last mass shooting, automatic weapons are not illegal, they are just harder to buy.

And your answer did not contribute. I expect the poster you replied to meant semi-automatic, since automatic weapons are not a big problem.

And then you can make it clear that any gun that you can repeatedly pull the trigger and fire is a semi-automatic, just to be pedantic.

The fact is single shot derringers are seldom used in mass shootings.

And gun control does work, as Gov. Newsome pointed out on Truth Social a little while back, the most unregulated states (Red states) also have the most per capita shooting deaths. Or conversely the most regulated states (Blue states) have the lowest per capita gun death rate.

[billethkid]

The capability of the gun IS NOT and HAS NOT been the problem!

[ThirdOfFive]

The capability of the gun IS NOT and HAS NOT been the problem!
Of course not.

But then again, why let the facts get in the way of a good rant?

[MartinSE]

The capability of the gun IS NOT and HAS NOT been the problem!

So, what is the problem? I see a lot of posts in a lot of threads telling us what will not work, what is not the problem, why we are wrong. Never anything about solving the problem - oh, wait, MORE GUNS that will solve the problem. Even though we have the highest gun ownership in the world every administration of either party sells more guns than the previous and yet, the problem keeps getting worse.

So, please enlighten us how do we stop murdering each other and our children?

[Topspinmo]

So, what is the problem? I see a lot of posts in a lot of threads telling us what will not work, what is not the problem, why we are wrong. Never anything about solving the problem - oh, wait, MORE GUNS that will solve the problem. Even though we have the highest gun ownership in the world every administration of either party sells more guns than the previous and yet, the problem keeps getting worse.

So, please enlighten us how do we stop murdering each other and our children?

Humans have been murdering each other since Cain and Able.

The problem is crazy people and some had red flags out the whazoo and multiple system failure’s. Agree some restrictions to rifle round capabilities should not be over 5 rounds. But any regulations or laws will only be enforced by law biding citizens. The crazies will find a way. Have to find way to stop the insane. Claiming insanity to get out of death row is not one way.

[MrFlorida]

When a drunk driver kills , do you want to ban cars ?

[tophcfa]

One only needs to open their eyes to see the root cause of problems. Killer was a self proclaimed rapper with a long and disturbing social media presence.

[Topspinmo]

When a drunk
driver kills , do you want to ban cars ?

But they could ban alcohol 🍺… o wait, they tried that..
:shocked:

[Topspinmo]

As was pointed out to me in the last mass shooting, automatic weapons are not illegal, they are just harder to buy.

And your answer did not contribute. I expect the poster you replied to meant semi-automatic, since automatic weapons are not a big problem.

And then you can make it clear that any gun that you can repeatedly pull the trigger and fire is a semi-automatic, just to be pedantic.

The fact is single shot derringers are seldom used in mass shootings.



And gun control does work, as Gov. Newsome pointed out on Truth Social a little while back, the most unregulated states (Red states) also have the most per capita shooting deaths. Or conversely the most regulated states (Blue states) have the lowest per capita gun death rate.

Yep, Gov. Newsome one we should be listen too.

[Keefelane66]

Only 330 mass shootings so far and it's only July 5th just accepted as normal.

[golfing eagles]

As was pointed out to me in the last mass shooting, automatic weapons are not illegal, they are just harder to buy.

And your answer did not contribute. I expect the poster you replied to meant semi-automatic, since automatic weapons are not a big problem.

And then you can make it clear that any gun that you can repeatedly pull the trigger and fire is a semi-automatic, just to be pedantic.

The fact is single shot derringers are seldom used in mass shootings.

And gun control does work, as Gov. Newsome pointed out on Truth Social a little while back, the most unregulated states (Red states) also have the most per capita shooting deaths. Or conversely the most regulated states (Blue states) have the lowest per capita gun death rate.

:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl:

You mean like Chicago, with some of the most restrictive gun laws in America?????

[Byte1]

So, what is the problem? I see a lot of posts in a lot of threads telling us what will not work, what is not the problem, why we are wrong. Never anything about solving the problem - oh, wait, MORE GUNS that will solve the problem. Even though we have the highest gun ownership in the world every administration of either party sells more guns than the previous and yet, the problem keeps getting worse.

So, please enlighten us how do we stop murdering each other and our children?

The problem is that when someone responds with an answer, if certain folks do not like the solution, it is immediately discounted as "that will never work."
Some folks say that they answer is guns in the hands of the good guys. I agree. I also believe that stricter penalties is a good deterrent. Unfortunately, then you have to consider that many "mass murderers" are merely performing a suicide by COP and no deterrent will work. Before anyone says that guns carried by good guys does not work, how about looking up the stats on how many lives have been saved every year by someone in possession of a gun. I believe it averages about a million per year are saved by a "good guy" with a gun.
When someone tell me that guns should be limited so they cannot be used to kill so many people in such a short time, I refer them to the fact that a revolver generally holds six rounds (bullets) and fires every time you pull the trigger until empty. A speed loader gives one the ability to reload in seconds. So, then you have someone like a certain person in D.C. that says a shot gun is all that is needed and that a warning shot in the air will solve the problem. Shot guns are also manufactured in the semi-automatic version, the pump version and the breech loaded style.
Now, consider home defense. If you home is being broken into by more than one perp. don't you want to even the odds of survival by having the ability to fire without reloading as much as you would if restricted by a six shot revolver or a shot gun? If the bad guys only had revolvers and were numbered two or more, they they would have twice the ability as you would, even if they were restricted by carrying only a revolver. Capacity of the gun the "good guy" is limited to, is not the answer either.
The fact really is that there is a very low number of folks killed by guns in America compared to the number of folks saved by guns, considering the amount of guns owned in the U.S. If not killed by guns, then by knives, cars, doctors, cancer, heart disease, etc. The only way to lower the killings is to scare the perpetrators into submission. Take away one instrument of murder and you only cause the person to find another. Blah, blah, blah, etc.

[TC_Arch]

I used to be a hunter and really would not want anyone to stop me from having my hunting guns. I could even see the potential reason for personal handguns for self defense. BUT I do feel that there needs to be much more control on automatic guns and long range rifles. Why can't our politician see that there are different guns for different purposes and band, or at least strongly control, any weapon that could be used for mass murders! Gun violence has gotten OUT OF CONTROL!
90% of the crap (movies) that comes out of Hollywood features, and glorifies, guns. Watch a movie like Road to Perdition and you see scene after scene where people are blasting the crap out of someone with automatic guns just for the hell of it.
Many TV shows are the same way. This goes back to the old cowboy movies of 60-70 years ago. This is what the public has been fed as "entertainment", just to make a buck. Is there any wonder that we have a problem with public violence?

[Number 10 GI]

I have stated this before on similar threads and will say it again. We have a violence problem and banning the tools used by evil people won't eliminate violence. If there was a way to confiscate all the guns in the country evil people would use another tool to commit mayhem. Bludgeons are used in more homicides than rifles. Have we forgotten the Boston Marathon murderers who used black powder taken from fireworks and packed it into pressure cookers to make bombs???
People in this country need to look at our moral values, the effect of social media on young children, the effect of fatherless families on young males and a host of other social failings. This isn't going to happen because it will require a lot of effort and soul searching. It is easier to blame an inanimate object and give into juvenile emotional responses.
Do a bit of internet searching and you will find many, many reports of violence not involving guns that result in death. To quote Jack Nicholson's Marine Colonel character in A Few Good Men, "You can't handle the truth!"

[MartinSE]

The problem is that when someone responds with an answer, if certain folks do not like the solution, it is immediately discounted as "that will never work."
Some folks say that they answer is guns in the hands of the good guys. I agree. I also believe that stricter penalties is a good deterrent. Unfortunately, then you have to consider that many "mass murderers" are merely performing a suicide by COP and no deterrent will work. Before anyone says that guns carried by good guys does not work, how about looking up the stats on how many lives have been saved every year by someone in possession of a gun. I believe it averages about a million per year are saved by a "good guy" with a gun.
When someone tell me that guns should be limited so they cannot be used to kill so many people in such a short time, I refer them to the fact that a revolver generally holds six rounds (bullets) and fires every time you pull the trigger until empty. A speed loader gives one the ability to reload in seconds. So, then you have someone like a certain person in D.C. that says a shot gun is all that is needed and that a warning shot in the air will solve the problem. Shot guns are also manufactured in the semi-automatic version, the pump version and the breech loaded style.
Now, consider home defense. If you home is being broken into by more than one perp. don't you want to even the odds of survival by having the ability to fire without reloading as much as you would if restricted by a six shot revolver or a shot gun? If the bad guys only had revolvers and were numbered two or more, they they would have twice the ability as you would, even if they were restricted by carrying only a revolver. Capacity of the gun the "good guy" is limited to, is not the answer either.
The fact really is that there is a very low number of folks killed by guns in America compared to the number of folks saved by guns, considering the amount of guns owned in the U.S. If not killed by guns, then by knives, cars, doctors, cancer, heart disease, etc. The only way to lower the killings is to scare the perpetrators into submission. Take away one instrument of murder and you only cause the person to find another. Blah, blah, blah, etc.

Thank you for an answer.

First, the thread, like so many lately, is about mass shootings. I agree the discussion of guns in general is much broader, but for mass shootings, I don't think there have been any cases of mass shooting stopped by a good guy with a gun. It might have happened, but it is't often compared to the 300+ mass shootings this year. There were a LOT of good guys standing around with gun at Uvalde and it didn't stop them, there were A LOT of good guys with guns in Illinois and he shot and got away (until chased down).

So, while I will agree there is certainly a valid argument to say that guns in the hands of good guys can help in self protection, but in mass shooting I don't know of any evidence - please correct me if I am wrong.

I think I have read many studies that show laws and law enforcement do not provide any deterrent to mass shootings. Personally, I would not be opposed to making sure we catch them alive, then lowering them slowly feet first into tree shredder and streaming the execution live on Youtube and on OTA TV. But, I expect we are too civilized to do that, but I expect it would have a deterrent on some of the shooters thinking about it. But, I expect they would be sure to commit suicide by cop before being caught.

Most murders are committed with hand guns, and most mass shootings are commit with AR-15's. I will agree before anyone pounces that if we somehow magically snapped our fingers and removed all AR-15s, the mass shooters would simply change to a new weapon of choice.

What I do know is that 8 of the top 10 states in the murders per capita race are Red and have the least amount of gun controls. What I don't know is how that relates, if it does to mass shootings.

What I don't see is any reason for NOT implementing universal gun controls that are designed to not restrict responsible law biding citizens from obtaining guns, if not more than say a short cooling off period. I am NOT saying this is a cure all, but I am saying it is something we could try without restricting people from getting guns while weeding out mental health issues, rage buying and shooting, domestic violence issues, etc.

I also see no reason why a person should not be able to be held accountable for a private sell to a person that can't pass a background check. Transfer of registration could require a background check at the expense of the buyer. So gun provenance being tracked to hold sellers responsible for selling illegally. Again that would have NO impact on legal lawful responsible buyers.

[MartinSE]

90% of the crap (movies) that comes out of Hollywood features, and glorifies, guns. Watch a movie like Road to Perdition and you see scene after scene where people are blasting the crap out of someone with automatic guns just for the hell of it.
Many TV shows are the same way. This goes back to the old cowboy movies of 60-70 years ago. This is what the public has been fed as "entertainment", just to make a buck. Is there any wonder that we have a problem with public violence?

Okay, so you hate violent movies. What you would suggest we do about that? Should we ban violence in moves?

[golfing eagles]

Okay, so you hate violent movies. What you would suggest we do about that? Should we ban violence in moves?

Ok, so you hate mass shootings. What you would suggest we do about that? Should we ban guns? That post , given your views, seems a bit hypocritical.

[MartinSE]

I have stated this before on similar threads and will say it again. We have a violence problem and banning the tools used by evil people won't eliminate violence. If there was a way to confiscate all the guns in the country evil people would use another tool to commit mayhem. Bludgeons are used in more homicides than rifles. Have we forgotten the Boston Marathon murderers who used black powder taken from fireworks and packed it into pressure cookers to make bombs???
People in this country need to look at our moral values, the effect of social media on young children, the effect of fatherless families on young males and a host of other social failings. This isn't going to happen because it will require a lot of effort and soul searching. It is easier to blame an inanimate object and give into juvenile emotional responses.
Do a bit of internet searching and you will find many, many reports of violence not involving guns that result in death. To quote Jack Nicholson's Marine Colonel character in A Few Good Men, "You can't handle the truth!"

You are conflating all murders with mass shootings. Yes, violence will happen, but I feel safe saying zero out of the 300 mass shootings this year have been committed by Bludgeons.

The weapon of choice is AR-15. PERIOD. That is not debatable.

That said, I will agree with you that melting down every AR-15 in the country/world would not stop mass shootings, they would simply switch to another weapon.

I disagree with your comment that people don't want to look at morals and social media et al. I have read numerous reports on those issues. And for the most part they show that those "symptoms" that you list are represent in almost every country in the world. And the other countries do not have 300 mass shootings this year. So, the implication is they are NOT the cause.

I personally think the cause is a feeling of hopelessness by most poor and middle class Americans. I don't think I recall a rich person EVER committing a mass shooting in this country. They are typically by people with mental health issues (one could argue that to shoot 6 strangers for not apparent reason is a form of mental illness), or people that want to strike back at others that have bullied them, or men that feel they lives out of control and a significant number are coming from an abusive relationship where they abused their wives who finally left them and got restraining orders - again, a form of feeling like their life is out of control.

So, my question is why is it that so many feel so hopeless in the richest country in the world?

My answer is predatory capitalism, BIG corporations (not small ones) that control our lives, our government and our economy and leave broken people in their wake. That is what I think it is root cause.

[golfing eagles]

You are conflating all murders with mass shootings. Yes, violence will happen, but I feel safe saying zero out of the 300 mass shootings this year have been committed by Bludgeons.

The weapon of choice is AR-15. PERIOD. That is not debatable.

That said, I will agree with you that melting down every AR-15 in the country/world would not stop mass shootings, they would simply switch to another weapon.

I disagree with your comment that people don't want to look at morals and social media et al. I have read numerous reports on those issues. And for the most part they show that those "symptoms" that you list are represent in almost every country in the world. And the other countries do not have 300 mass shootings this year. So, the implication is they are NOT the cause.

I personally think the cause is a feeling of hopelessness by most poor and middle class Americans. I don't think I recall a rich person EVER committing a mass shooting in this country. They are typically by people with mental health issues (one could argue that to shoot 6 strangers for not apparent reason is a form of mental illness), or people that want to strike back at others that have bullied them, or men that feel they lives out of control and a significant number are coming from an abusive relationship where they abused their wives who finally left them and got restraining orders - again, a form of feeling like their life is out of control.

So, my question is why is it that so many feel so hopeless in the richest country in the world?

My answer is predatory capitalism, BIG corporations (not small ones) that control our lives, our government and our economy and leave broken people in their wake. That is what I think it is root cause.

Wouldn't have that problem in North Korea

[DAVES]

I used to be a hunter and really would not want anyone to stop me from having my hunting guns. I could even see the potential reason for personal handguns for self defense. BUT I do feel that there needs to be much more control on automatic guns and long range rifles. Why can't our politician see that there are different guns for different purposes and band, or at least strongly control, any weapon that could be used for mass murders! Gun violence has gotten OUT OF CONTROL!

We tend to be influenced by what we a fed in the news. First of all the term ASSAULT RIFLe endlessly wrongly used. An assault rifle is by definition an AUTOMATIC weapon. You need a special permit, virtually impossible to get to own an automatic weapon.

CAUSE AND EFFECT? The areas of our nation with the highest number of shootings-New York, Chicago, Los Angeles also have the tightest gun control laws. Laws by definition only effect law abiding people.

Obvious press bias. News where the criminal is stopped by a legal gun owner. Are there none? NO they just are not reported. Here in the Villages. I know several. Grandma who looks like Aunt Bea of Mayberry is a deadly shot and is carrying.

[Taurus510]

Of the 10 top states for Gun Murders, 8 are red with the least gun controls. The cities you mentioned are high population density which mean more things happen. But the highest RATES are 8 out of 10 red.
Care to share that list? Along with the cities inside those states that are causing those high rates? Wanna bet those are blue cities in those red states that cause those high rates?

[DAVES]

I agree with you 100%. Most politicians are bought off and vote their personal interests.

As frustrating as it often is. our for of government is a representative republic. We elect people who are supposed to represent us. We may not like who our fellow citizens voted for or how our ELECTED representatives vote on any issue.

We seek simple answers to all or most questions. Reality there are no simple or perfect answers and yet we demand, seek perfect answers.

We tend to think the issues are NEW-they are not. I think I am for not gun control but criminal control. Even that is not and cannot be a perfect answer. History shows uncontrolled power leads to those that do not agree with us, us is always we are perfect, are declared to be criminals. History, we've had witch trials, the colosseum, the holocaust, some interesting inventions, on the rack, properly done all will confess to anything.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Every “Mass Shooting” someone simply MUST start a thread….

Yeah maybe if people stopped talking about it, everyone would stop caring about all those dead people and we can be happy again.

Because that is just - so logical.
/sarcasm

[DAVES]

Of the 10 top states for Gun Murders, 8 are red with the least gun controls. The cities you mentioned are high population density which mean more things happen. But the highest RATES are 8 out of 10 red.

That is called SPIN. When faced with reality change the question.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

When a drunk driver kills , do you want to ban cars ?

No but if the majority of people who killed a few dozen people were driving exclusively red Chevy Trailblazers, the insurance companies would probably raise their rates on red Chevy Trailblazers, and the police would be more watchful for people driving red Chevy Trailblazers, and the manufacturer would probably be getting pressure from various organizations (including, possibly, the government) to make it more difficult to kill a few dozen people by a single driver.

Instead - some people will suggest we just give more red Chevy Trailblazers to more people, because that'll solve the problem.

Again - that's just SO logical.

/sarcasm

[DAVES]

The problem is that when someone responds with an answer, if certain folks do not like the solution, it is immediately discounted as "that will never work."
Some folks say that they answer is guns in the hands of the good guys. I agree. I also believe that stricter penalties is a good deterrent. Unfortunately, then you have to consider that many "mass murderers" are merely performing a suicide by COP and no deterrent will work. Before anyone says that guns carried by good guys does not work, how about looking up the stats on how many lives have been saved every year by someone in possession of a gun. I believe it averages about a million per year are saved by a "good guy" with a gun.
When someone tell me that guns should be limited so they cannot be used to kill so many people in such a short time, I refer them to the fact that a revolver generally holds six rounds (bullets) and fires every time you pull the trigger until empty. A speed loader gives one the ability to reload in seconds. So, then you have someone like a certain person in D.C. that says a shot gun is all that is needed and that a warning shot in the air will solve the problem. Shot guns are also manufactured in the semi-automatic version, the pump version and the breech loaded style.
Now, consider home defense. If you home is being broken into by more than one perp. don't you want to even the odds of survival by having the ability to fire without reloading as much as you would if restricted by a six shot revolver or a shot gun? If the bad guys only had revolvers and were numbered two or more, they they would have twice the ability as you would, even if they were restricted by carrying only a revolver. Capacity of the gun the "good guy" is limited to, is not the answer either.
The fact really is that there is a very low number of folks killed by guns in America compared to the number of folks saved by guns, considering the amount of guns owned in the U.S. If not killed by guns, then by knives, cars, doctors, cancer, heart disease, etc. The only way to lower the killings is to scare the perpetrators into submission. Take away one instrument of murder and you only cause the person to find another. Blah, blah, blah, etc.


So many of these posts are written by people who have a view. Freedom of speech I do think it is an important right. It is actually the first amendment, considered the most important.
No where, does it say only those who agree with me can speak. Nor does it say the person speaking needs to know what they are saying is correct.

A revolver, there are revolvers that hold 7 and 9 shots. There are revolvers where you can change the cylinder. Today a revolver costs roughly twice what a semi automatic pistol does.

Why all the posts by both sides? Where we are and my view. Our country, our people, the same people who vote. There is no desire for a compromise. The anti gun people will not stop. The goal for them is NO GUNS. Perhaps interesting. England has greatly restricted guns. They have and sell really powerful air rifles and there are states where a gun is legal but a cross bow is not.

We expect, no demand perfect solutions-THERE ARE NONE. Our supreme court ruled Roe vs Wade is not good law and abortion would be a state issue. OK States rights vs central government. Same court ruled that NY gun laws are unconstitutional-central government vs states rights. This battle was the issue in the civil war. The TRUE ISSUE it is perhaps unsolvable.

[Number 10 GI]

You are conflating all murders with mass shootings. Yes, violence will happen, but I feel safe saying zero out of the 300 mass shootings this year have been committed by Bludgeons.

Why are you deflecting from the fact that violence is the problem, not the tool used to commit the violence? It is VILOENCE that is the cause!

The weapon of choice is AR-15. PERIOD. That is not debatable.

Hand guns are the weapon of choice in mass murders by a pretty good margin.

• Guns used in mass shootings U.S. 2021 | Statista (https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/)


That said, I will agree with you that melting down every AR-15 in the country/world would not stop mass shootings, they would simply switch to another weapon.

I disagree with your comment that people don't want to look at morals and social media et al. I have read numerous reports on those issues. And for the most part they show that those "symptoms" that you list are represent in almost every country in the world. And the other countries do not have 300 mass shootings this year. So, the implication is they are NOT the cause.

You don't consider murder a moral problem? We have an extremely high rate of fatherless children which has been shown to be a significant contributor to juvenile crime. As this chart shows the U.S. has one of the highest rates of fatherless families with the UK having the higest rate and they have been having a large juvenile crime problem.

https://spacedoutscientist.com/2017/07/18/single-parents-worldwide-statistics-and-trends/

I personally think the cause is a feeling of hopelessness by most poor and middle class Americans. I don't think I recall a rich person EVER committing a mass shooting in this country. They are typically by people with mental health issues (one could argue that to shoot 6 strangers for not apparent reason is a form of mental illness), or people that want to strike back at others that have bullied them, or men that feel they lives out of control and a significant number are coming from an abusive relationship where they abused their wives who finally left them and got restraining orders - again, a form of feeling like their life is out of control.

So, my question is why is it that so many feel so hopeless in the richest country in the world?

My answer is predatory capitalism, BIG corporations (not small ones) that control our lives, our government and our economy and leave broken people in their wake. That is what I think it is root cause.

]You don't think there is "predatory capitalism" in other countries of the world? You want an example, China!
[/B

[B]Have you seen any bills introduced by our elected officials that put restriction on social media to screen the postings of people on the sites? I haven't! If a person posts something on one of the major social media sites that goes against their political/social/economic beliefs it is deleted and the original poster is banned in many cases. Why aren't they deleting and banning violent posts by some of these mass killers? Seems like they only find them when one commits an atrocity.

There have been numerous reports of teens, mainly girls, committing suicide because of bullying on social medial sites. Has anything been done by the owners of these media websites to prevent this type of shaming and bullying? Is that the sound of crickets I hear?

[DAVES]

Well, the problem is the 2nd amendment. There is no way our divide government can make any changes to clarify it. The is debate over the meaning, and the current SCOTUS is not about to take a point of view that favors any controls.

This thread is simply going to circle the same old arguments, and once again nothing will change.

OF COURSE. people have a point of view and then will try to justify it by any means necessary.
We are not even aware of what we are being fed. The very popular movie Shidler's List by Spielberg was a great hit. Shidler was cast a a rich playboy hoodwinked by his Jewish accountant. Spielberg is anti right to bear arms.
Spielberg did a great job of spinning the TRUTH to fit his antigun BIAS. The TRUTH the REALITY. Hitler was able to do his horrors because the Jews were unarmed. Not just did they not have guns they did not know how to use them.

Why would the Jews that survived because of Shidler revere him if the move was true in suggesting that he took advantage of essentially free labor? The historical truth is that Shidler, risked his own life to train his labors to use guns.

People, want to DICTATE to others what they can do. I find it interesting. Abortion, the right to CHOOSE. Those on the left support it. Those on the right want to DICTATE to others what they can do. Right to bear arms, supported by those on the right some on the left want to DICTATE to others what they can do.

Laws need to be enforced. Endless posts about people and golf cart speed limits. Posters-the LAW does not apply to me. Mass shootings. It is illegal to take a gun onto school grounds. So obvious it is stupid. It is illegal to shoot innocent students and teachers.

[JMintzer]

You are conflating all murders with mass shootings. Yes, violence will happen, but I feel safe saying zero out of the 300 mass shootings this year have been committed by Bludgeons.

The weapon of choice is AR-15. PERIOD. That is not debatable.

Actually, it is QUITE debatable...

The reason you think there have been 300+ mass shootings this year is because they changed the criteria for mass shootings. Same with school shootings. The vast majority were gang related, and happened near or on school property when school was not in session...

Also, the weapon of choice for the VAST MAJORITY of those 300 "mass shootings" were handguns, not an AR-15...

[Reiver]

Automatic weapons have been illegal for almost 100 Years now.

That is 100% false. You absolutely can own a fully automatic weapon and it isn’t all that difficult.

The requirements for owning a machine gun, or an automatic weapon, in the United States:

Must not be classified as a “prohibited person.”
Be at least 21 years of age to purchase a machine gun from the current owner.
Be a legal resident of the United States.
Be legally eligible to purchase a firearm.
Pass a BATFE background check with a typical process time of 8 to 10 months.
Pay a one-time $200 transfer tax. (You’ll need a stamp for each machine gun.)

And now you're good to go.

[Luggage]

There are many reasons our forefathers decided on the Bill of Rights and the fact that we are allowed guns in America. Probably the biggest one you can understand is what's happening in Ukraine right now. However I will not go over all the other reasons as many commentators have already said the bulk of the reasoning. I will point out however that America has the largest percentage of its population in jail and we still have crimes involving guns. I will also point out that while these mass shootings are terrible, we have other statistics that are even worse that we should be concerned about like over 30,000 people killed by cars every year, 90,000 people killed by alcohol every year. I do want to point out that suicides by gun are over half the gun deaths. Perhaps in 10 or 20 years technology will solve all of our problems by having an integrated circuit in the chip in a gun can tell whether the person holding it is nuts or not. But for now that's science fiction. I am always concerned when you want to have government people decide what I can do and what I cannot do based on my mental condition and social media because after all you can't really watch the watchers and it becomes pretty much non-factual

[jonathanb]

Problem is not guns. The problem is young men in this country are becoming increasingly mentally unstable. To many psychotropic drugs being handed out to young people with many long term psychological side effects that make drug companies like Pfizer way to
Much money. Our country walking away from God and biblical values along with Societal changes giving people feelings of worthlessness and making them angry along with these drugs is the problem. Law abiding citizens do not commit mass shootings no matter what type or how many guns they have. Guns are basically illegal in Chicago and look at what happens there daily. Taking guns away is a power grab of politicians to give Americans no right to protect ourselves and families from criminals and a corrupt government.

[gettingby]

Automatic weapons have been illegal for almost 100 Years now.

Not true, got a buddy that owns 5 of them. The background checks and requirements to get the paperwork needed is expensive and time consuming but you can get one.

[Dahabs]

When a drunk driver kills , do you want to ban cars ?

Cute.

[gettingby]

Vote blue to get the controls you seek

Horrible idea. Blue has been in charge for the last 18 months and all we have now is a nation wide crap show.

[Blackbird45]

Look to ignore there is a problem, is the problem. The left wants to control firearms and the right wants to blame the mentally ill. Both are valid positions. But let's face it, controlling firearm is easier than trying to figure out who is mentally ill.

A smart firearms company should be able to sit down at their drawing board with hunters and come up with the best gun ever made that will not destroy their target. They should also be able to come up with the best home weapon for home self-defense. Remember it's self-defense, not let me kill someone. There's money to be made if these companies have the right mind set.

[Andyb]

I used to be a hunter and really would not want anyone to stop me from having my hunting guns. I could even see the potential reason for personal handguns for self defense. BUT I do feel that there needs to be much more control on automatic guns and long range rifles. Why can't our politician see that there are different guns for different purposes and band, or at least strongly control, any weapon that could be used for mass murders! Gun violence has gotten OUT OF CONTROL!
Well, you are completely wrong, guns don’t kill people, people kill people. If a make a spelling error, did I make the mistake or did the pencil make the mistake? If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. We need to enforce the laws already on the books. Why is it the strictest gun laws states have the most gun violence. We have a societal and mental health crisis not a gun problem. If we lose our 2nd amendment we lose America, it’s about our only freedom we got left. Oh, I don’t own any guns, either.

[skarra]

Look to ignore there is a problem, is the problem. The left wants to control firearms and the right wants to blame the mentally ill. Both are valid positions. But let's face it, controlling firearm is easier than trying to figure out who is mentally ill.

A smart firearms company should be able to sit down at their drawing board with hunters and come up with the best gun ever made that will not destroy their target. They should also be able to come up with the best home weapon for home self-defense. Remember it's self-defense, not let me kill someone. There's money to be made if these companies have the right mind set.


An interesting idea, but waiting for that to happen could take a long time.

We need to look at the data. There are many countries with different approaches, and even within the US many states and towns. The police deal with this problem a lot - how do they feel about everyone being armed with a gun and open carry? How do the citizens feel about it?

Personally I don’t feel safe to see everyone I encounter in the street with a gun by their side - too many crazies out there with hair triggers. But locked away in a safe at home - that seems to meet most people’s requirement for safety and ability to bear arms.

An AR-15 shouldn’t be available to 18 year olds period. That should be an easy fix in our laws.

[srswans]

I used to be a hunter and really would not want anyone to stop me from having my hunting guns. I could even see the potential reason for personal handguns for self defense. BUT I do feel that there needs to be much more control on automatic guns and long range rifles. Why can't our politician see that there are different guns for different purposes and band, or at least strongly control, any weapon that could be used for mass murders! Gun violence has gotten OUT OF CONTROL!

We need a refresher on the Second Amendment. It’s main purpose, IIRC, was to keep the government in check. From this perspective, it is not a mystery why the left wants to get rid of guns. That’s the last thing we need.

[JMintzer]

A smart firearms company should be able to sit down at their drawing board with hunters and come up with the best gun ever made that will not destroy their target. They should also be able to come up with the best home weapon for home self-defense. Remember it's self-defense, not let me kill someone. There's money to be made if these companies have the right mind set.

That is physically impossible...

[JMintzer]

I used to be a hunter and really would not want anyone to stop me from having my hunting guns. I could even see the potential reason for personal handguns for self defense. BUT I do feel that there needs to be much more control on automatic guns and long range rifles.!

So, you only hunted at close range?

And tell me, when was the last time an "automatic gun" was used in a crime in the US?

[Blackbird45]

At one point in N.Y.C. stop and frisk was in effect. Thought it was discriminatory and unconstitutional it did illustrate one thing the less firearms on the street the less crime. The decision of the supreme court allowing open carry might be constitutional, but it will a disaster. These justices live in a different world than the rest of us.

[JMintzer]

No but if the majority of people who killed a few dozen people were driving exclusively red Chevy Trailblazers, the insurance companies would probably raise their rates on red Chevy Trailblazers, and the police would be more watchful for people driving red Chevy Trailblazers, and the manufacturer would probably be getting pressure from various organizations (including, possibly, the government) to make it more difficult to kill a few dozen people by a single driver.

Instead - some people will suggest we just give more red Chevy Trailblazers to more people, because that'll solve the problem.

Again - that's just SO logical.

/sarcasm

Gee... The most popular car is the one in the highest # of accidents... Whoda' thunk that would happen?

White panel vans are everywhere and have been used in multiple mass killings... I haven't seen the cry to ban them, nor exorbitant insurance rates on them...

And who is suggesting we "give" anyone more guns? Well, except for Ukraine... They seem to need them...

[RatattacK79]

This is obviously a mental health issue and has never been a gun issue.

[Mushkie]

I used to be a hunter and really would not want anyone to stop me from having my hunting guns. I could even see the potential reason for personal handguns for self defense. BUT I do feel that there needs to be much more control on automatic guns and long range rifles. Why can't our politician see that there are different guns for different purposes and band, or at least strongly control, any weapon that could be used for mass murders! Gun violence has gotten OUT OF CONTROL!

This is their plan- ramp up violence to scare people into begging the government to take away their freedom, take away their guns.
The Evil aspects (Dems and RINO’s) in our Government are doing everything they can to destabilize marriage and families (welfare laws=fatherless, dependent on government handouts=plantation life; radical LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ indoctrination), de-humanize human life (pushing the agenda abortion is not only “good” for the woman to advance her career or ensure her freedom, but actually better for the baby to prevent them from being born into a life of poverty) and “to save the planet we need to kill humans”; devalue and poo poo the ideals of believing in God and religion, self reliance, resilience, hard work and sacrificing “now” to make it better in the future generations. All these an more have been the incubator for mass murderers and other evil acts.
You are being conditioned to believe that giving away your freedom in exchange for the false sense of security and safety is a good trade.
You gotta ask yourself- if guns are the problem, why no mass shootings at a gun store or shooting range??? Because these evil people look for soft targets- schools, shopping malls, hospitals and medical facilities, large public events.

Mass shooters and shootings have dramatically increased since “sounds good, virtue signaling title” policies have been enacted and “progressive” agenda:

- “gun free zone” laws (as evil would follow such an idiotic law),

- shooters almost exclusively Democrats- I am not kidding- and/or had contact with Leftist organizations.

-defund the police, disregard and disrespect for law and order,

- glamorize the destruction of “God fearing, good old fashioned” values, family and marriage.

Evil and evil acts will always exist in a free society. Utopia isn’t possible and every attempt to create Utopia is makes life a tyrannical hell.

Freedom, by definition is dangerous, risky, uncertain but life without Freedom is a life not worth living.

Guns aren’t the problem- mass murderers can use a car, a bomb, a plane, a vaccine.

Historically, any government that confiscated guns from their citizens “for their safety” quickly preceded to slaughter hundreds of millions of their citizens they labeled “a danger to society”- them - Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Lenin.

And the argument “oh, but that wouldn’t happen here in the United States” won’t work either- cuz it already did- the largest mass murder in America happen in Dec 29, 1890 and done by THE GOVERNMENT. Federal agents and the 7th cavalry went to Wounded Knee creek to confiscate the guns of the Sioux Indians. Once the majority of Sioux had surrendered their guns, the cavalry opened fire, killing all of the 297 Indians- 200 of the 297 were unarmed women and children.

“Any society that willingly gives away a little freedom to gain a little security, deserves neither and loses both” - Ben Franklin.



STAY FREE

[JMintzer]

OF COURSE. people have a point of view and then will try to justify it by any means necessary.
We are not even aware of what we are being fed. The very popular movie Shidler's List by Spielberg was a great hit. Shidler was cast a a rich playboy hoodwinked by his Jewish accountant. Spielberg is anti right to bear arms.
Spielberg did a great job of spinning the TRUTH to fit his antigun BIAS. The TRUTH the REALITY. Hitler was able to do his horrors because the Jews were unarmed. Not just did they not have guns they did not know how to use them.

Why would the Jews that survived because of Shidler revere him if the move was true in suggesting that he took advantage of essentially free labor? The historical truth is that Shidler, risked his own life to train his labors to use guns.

People, want to DICTATE to others what they can do. I find it interesting. Abortion, the right to CHOOSE. Those on the left support it. Those on the right want to DICTATE to others what they can do. Right to bear arms, supported by those on the right some on the left want to DICTATE to others what they can do.

Laws need to be enforced. Endless posts about people and golf cart speed limits. Posters-the LAW does not apply to me. Mass shootings. It is illegal to take a gun onto school grounds. So obvious it is stupid. It is illegal to shoot innocent students and teachers.

Check out the film "Defiance", starring Daniel Craig...

It's about a group of Jews, who after acquiring just one gun, were able to amass an arsenal and a form a rag tag army that survived in the Black Forest for several years, during WWII...

[GizmoWhiskers]

I used to be a hunter and really would not want anyone to stop me from having my hunting guns. I could even see the potential reason for personal handguns for self defense. BUT I do feel that there needs to be much more control on automatic guns and long range rifles. Why can't our politician see that there are different guns for different purposes and band, or at least strongly control, any weapon that could be used for mass murders! Gun violence has gotten OUT OF CONTROL!
How about our no longer "mainstream" media is out of control; mis-informs, lies, they are proganda mongers, they glorify killers and instigate more. How about our justice system has gone rogue, investigates political factors based on politician requests not real life. Our court system has gone amuck, infiltrated by purchased players with letting criminals walk to destabalize the nation. Criminals know they won't be held anymore. How about the lack of "the right hand knowing what the left hand is doing" on mental health issues... the list goes on and on.
All it takes is one concealed weapon holder with a defense weapon to stop a rampage rogue killer. Disarming law abiding citizens is not the answer. Bring back REAL courts and REAL punishment and you will see change.

People fleeing rogue states to find safety in states of stability that happen to allow concealed weapon permitting speaks volume.

[golfing eagles]

Here's a better idea----instead of banning guns, ban "hoodies". Can anyone name anything good that ever came out of a hoodie, especially at night when it isn't raining?????

[JMintzer]

An AR-15 shouldn’t be available to 18 year olds period. That should be an easy fix in our laws.

The reason this is now being pushed is the claim that an 18 yo's brain isn't fully developed. They use the same reasoning to raise the drinking age to 21... Logical, right?

So why do we let them vote at 18? (and there are some who want to lower the voting age to 16!). I can't think of a reason why they would want that, can you? [/sarcasm]

[JMintzer]

At one point in N.Y.C. stop and frisk was in effect. Thought it was discriminatory and unconstitutional it did illustrate one thing the less firearms on the street the less crime. The decision of the supreme court allowing open carry might be constitutional, but it will a disaster. These justices live in a different world than the rest of us.

I don't believe the SCOTUS decision was about "open carry"... Just carry...

The vast majority who carry do so concealed...

[Blackbird45]

A VW bug and a formula 1 are both cars, but both were designed for a different purpose. You will not see a VW bug at La Mann or a formula 1 are on city streets.
Yes, you can use assault firearms for hunting and for personal self-defense, but that is not what they were designed for. I’m not suggesting that assault weapons should be banned, but restrictions on who can own these weapons and where they could be carried might not be a bad idea.

[ThirdOfFive]

We need a refresher on the Second Amendment. It’s main purpose, IIRC, was to keep the government in check. From this perspective, it is not a mystery why the left wants to get rid of guns. That’s the last thing we need.
Exactly!

Every last right in the Bill of Rights was enacted to protect the American people from the GOVERNMENT. It would be totally illogical to believe that the right to keep and bear arms (i.e. the Second Amendment) is not there for the same purpose.

[JMintzer]

Here's a better idea----instead of banning guns, ban "hoodies". Can anyone name anything good that ever came out of a hoodie, especially at night when it isn't raining?????

20 something aged girls are terrified of that thought...

(They are known for stealing their boyfriend's and their father's hoodies...) :1rotfl:

[golfing eagles]

At one point in N.Y.C. stop and frisk was in effect. Thought it was discriminatory and unconstitutional it did illustrate one thing the less firearms on the street the less crime. The decision of the supreme court allowing open carry might be constitutional, but it will a disaster. These justices live in a different world than the rest of us.

Half right---it demonstrated that less guns in the hands of CRIMINALS = less crime. The police stopped and frisked individuals who "looked" like criminals, leading to less crime, but also "unconstitutional" since it was interpreted as "profiling".
It simply reminds me of an interview on 60 minutes with the head of Israeli airport security, since Entebbe no El Al plane has ever been hijacked. Mike Wallace asked how they do this---and the answer was simple---"we don't look for guns or bombs, we profile the individual"---100% effective for them, here, "unconstitutional"

[JMintzer]

A VW bug and a formula 1 are both cars, but both were designed for a different purpose. You will not see a VW bug at La Mann or a formula 1 are on city streets.
Yes, you can use assault firearms for hunting and for personal self-defense, but that is not what they were designed for. I’m not suggesting that assault weapons should be banned, but restrictions on who can own these weapons and where they could be carried might not be a bad idea.

Good thing no one uses an assault firearm for hunting... And I can't find a single instance where one was used in self defense, either...

Now AR-15s, otoh, are used to hunt quite often and have been in self defense many times...

Here's an ad for the AR-15 from the early 60's...

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/13434807_1383807998301784_6909590571140954570_n.jp g

[Marine1974]

As was pointed out to me in the last mass shooting, automatic weapons are not illegal, they are just harder to buy.

And your answer did not contribute. I expect the poster you replied to meant semi-automatic, since automatic weapons are not a big problem.

And then you can make it clear that any gun that you can repeatedly pull the trigger and fire is a semi-automatic, just to be pedantic.

The fact is single shot derringers are seldom used in mass shootings.

And gun control does work, as Gov. Newsome pointed out on Truth Social a little while back, the most unregulated states (Red states) also have the most per capita shooting deaths. Or conversely the most regulated states (Blue states) have the lowest per capita gun death rate.

Not in Illinois, a blue state , city of Chicago has the highest murder rate with a gun . Governor Newsome doesn’t know or doesn’t want to admit a blue state has the highest murder rate using a gun .
The bad guys have ruined it for the good guys , turn in your guns now .

[Vermilion Villager]

We’ll, you claim to be an ex-hunter, then follow that up with an ignorant statement about “automatic” weapons. There are already many restrictions on automatic weapons. If you wish to own one, you have to go through an EXTENSIVE background check, the local sheriff has to personally vouch for you, then you will pay thousands just for the license to own an automatic weapon. Are you claiming that you hunted with automatic weapons?

He also said "and long range rifles"

[jammaiora]

I used to be a hunter and really would not want anyone to stop me from having my hunting guns. I could even see the potential reason for personal handguns for self defense. BUT I do feel that there needs to be much more control on automatic guns and long range rifles. Why can't our politician see that there are different guns for different purposes and band, or at least strongly control, any weapon that could be used for mass murders! Gun violence has gotten OUT OF CONTROL!
It's not all politicians, only the Republicans, who are supported by the gun lobbyists and gun manufacturers. It's all about money and greed. The US has more guns than population and more gun violence than the rest of the world.

[Randyj66]

I just don't understand why so many people are confused! If you are killed by a motor vehicle we don't try to ban motor vehicles, we look at the person operating it. Hence a gun is nothing without a operator! If you put your feelings aside there has only been one common denominator in all of the shootings, and that is related to the mental health of the gun owner. Guns do not function without a operator. We desperately need to change the way we need to address mental health. Again so many people have remained silent when they have witnessed someone with a severe mental health problem. Why, because we have become a nation of Karen's that are only willing to gossip about problems but do absolutely nothing to fix the problem because they are too lazy to get involved! Open your eyes,watch your surroundings and see something and do something! All of these situations have started at home because of a total breakdown of family structure. The problems then head to school where nothing is done to fix the home or school situation. Upon no effective mental health intervention the individual starts into a dark spiral.Fix the family equation, fix reporting of mental health problems, ban computer games that desensitize children by rewarding them by killing ! Children have become de sensitized by such games.Some can differentiate from fantasy and reality and others can't that's the issue. Please think about my thoughts and please try and help the situation. Because these are not normal thinking individuals I'm worried that if we remove there guns as weapons what are they going to use to commit these horrible crimes with next??? In closing I say Mental Health!!!!

[ringmic88]

The first step in solving a problem is to identify the problem. Is the gun really the problem or is it a symptom of the problem. This issue has turned into a political cudgel to sway people to vote for thier political party.

If our government could work together to properly identify the problem and come up with a meaningful way to combat it that is not based on politics we may get somewhere. More gun laws is not the answer ..... it's a political tool.

[ThirdOfFive]

This is their plan- ramp up violence to scare people into begging the government to take away their freedom, take away their guns.
The Evil aspects (Dems and RINO’s) in our Government are doing everything they can to destabilize marriage and families (welfare laws=fatherless, dependent on government handouts=plantation life; radical LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ indoctrination), de-humanize human life (pushing the agenda abortion is not only “good” for the woman to advance her career or ensure her freedom, but actually better for the baby to prevent them from being born into a life of poverty) and “to save the planet we need to kill humans”; devalue and poo poo the ideals of believing in God and religion, self reliance, resilience, hard work and sacrificing “now” to make it better in the future generations. All these an more have been the incubator for mass murderers and other evil acts.
You are being conditioned to believe that giving away your freedom in exchange for the false sense of security and safety is a good trade.
You gotta ask yourself- if guns are the problem, why no mass shootings at a gun store or shooting range??? Because these evil people look for soft targets- schools, shopping malls, hospitals and medical facilities, large public events.

Mass shooters and shootings have dramatically increased since “sounds good, virtue signaling title” policies have been enacted and “progressive” agenda:

- “gun free zone” laws (as evil would follow such an idiotic law),

- shooters almost exclusively Democrats- I am not kidding- and/or had contact with Leftist organizations.

-defund the police, disregard and disrespect for law and order,

- glamorize the destruction of “God fearing, good old fashioned” values, family and marriage.

Evil and evil acts will always exist in a free society. Utopia isn’t possible and every attempt to create Utopia is makes life a tyrannical hell.

Freedom, by definition is dangerous, risky, uncertain but life without Freedom is a life not worth living.

Guns aren’t the problem- mass murderers can use a car, a bomb, a plane, a vaccine.

Historically, any government that confiscated guns from their citizens “for their safety” quickly preceded to slaughter hundreds of millions of their citizens they labeled “a danger to society”- them - Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Lenin.

And the argument “oh, but that wouldn’t happen here in the United States” won’t work either- cuz it already did- the largest mass murder in America happen in Dec 29, 1890 and done by THE GOVERNMENT. Federal agents and the 7th cavalry went to Wounded Knee creek to confiscate the guns of the Sioux Indians. Once the majority of Sioux had surrendered their guns, the cavalry opened fire, killing all of the 297 Indians- 200 of the 297 were unarmed women and children.

“Any society that willingly gives away a little freedom to gain a little security, deserves neither and loses both” - Ben Franklin.



STAY FREE
Agreed. On just about every point.

The proof of the accuracy of the quoted post isn't hard to find. It exists in the past of most of us. Back in the day (1960's) guns were everywhere in the area where I lived. We even brought guns to school: gun safety and training classes were held on a regula basis, so bringing a gun to school was commonplace. We had to store 'em in the Principal's office until it was time to use them but the ammo we just carried loose in our pockets. Dad collected guns (had over 50 when he died), and my siblings and I were all taught at a very early age how to use and care for guns, but most of all how to RESPECT guns.

Along with that, we were taught at home from toddlerhood to RESPECT one another as well. I, as well as the great majority of the people of the time, came from two-married-parent households with strong role models for both genders. We learned strong positive values from an early age, both because of the parental role-models we had and because we knew that if we transgressed significantly we'd have a warm behind. Once in school, Mom and Dad had one cardinal rule: "Don't get in trouble at school and then come home and tell us about it, because you'll be in twice as much trouble at home". And they meant it.

Contrast that to today. The lack of effective parenting has led to a significant lack of values, mainly on the part of the young but certainly not limited to them. Penalties under the law, even when applied, usually end up being so watered-down because of plea-bargaining that it hardly serves as any kind of deterrent. At home when I was a youngster, we never locked anything. Today, I lock everything, even in relatively crime-free TV. And my wife and I both have handguns in our nightstands.

It is a different world than the one many of us grew up in. And we seem intent on following a path that is guaranteed to make it even worse.

[Ptmckiou]

The capability of the gun IS NOT and HAS NOT been the problem!

Actually not true. Let’s take that statement to its extreme, to make my point. If you have two guys armed in a gymnasium full of children, and one has an AR-15, and the other has a 6-shooter, who is going to kill more humans in 60 seconds? Who is going to have to pause often to reload, to give police the opportunity to shoot him? Who’s victims will likely live (even though they were shot) because the holes are addressable by doctors, whereas they other guys bullets explode inside the body creating massive trauma to many organs, including ripping off limbs and decapitating victims?

The CAPABILITY of the gun IS THE ISSUE!!!!

[Joe C.]

It is my God given right to defend myself. It is reaffirmed in the 2nd Amendment. But the 2nd Amendment is also there to protect us from a tyrannical government. And only a tyrannical government would disarm it's citizens.

There should be strict enforcement of gun laws, and the consequence of violating them should be severe punishment, and IMHO, in many cases the death penalty applied. But then the leftists would say that certain minorities would be impacted, and that's not fair. Others would say that it's too cruel and unusual punishment.

Let's take the emotion out of the argument, express only the facts, and apply logic to eliminate the problem.

[Ptmckiou]

We need a refresher on the Second Amendment. It’s main purpose, IIRC, was to keep the government in check. From this perspective, it is not a mystery why the left wants to get rid of guns. That’s the last thing we need.

The main purpose of the 2nd amendment is to have a ready armed “militia” if needed, instead of having to employ a federal army. You had to register to be in the militia, and what arms you had were monitored and the gov could take them away if you were taken of the register. Under no circumstances, is the citizens of the USA (armed as they may) going to win a fight with the US military. Never going to happen. They don’t have the resources or expertise of advance artillery that the military has. Therefore, it’s a moot point to keep saying the 2nd amendment is to keep the government in check.. Haaaaa dream on about that thought…

[Joe C.]

Actually not true. Let’s take that statement to its extreme, to make my point. If you have two guys armed in a gymnasium full of children, and one has an AR-15, and the other has a 6-shooter, who is going to kill more humans in 60 seconds? Who is going to have to pause often to reload, to give police the opportunity to shoot him? Who’s victims will likely live (even though they were shot) because the holes are addressable by doctors, whereas they other guys bullets explode inside the body creating massive trauma to many organs, including ripping off limbs and decapitating victims?

The CAPABILITY of the gun IS THE ISSUE!!!!


Bullets that EXPLODE? Or bullets that expand. I've never seen a gun that would DECAPITATE a person. I think you've watched too many movies.

[donassaid]

I expect the good people of Ukraine would prefer to have AR 15's right now as well as those in Venezuela.

[MartinSE]

I just don't understand why so many people are confused! If you are killed by a motor vehicle we don't try to ban motor vehicles, we look at the person operating it. Hence a gun is nothing without a operator! If you put your feelings aside there has only been one common denominator in all of the shootings, and that is related to the mental health of the gun owner. Guns do not function without a operator. We desperately need to change the way we need to address mental health. Again so many people have remained silent when they have witnessed someone with a severe mental health problem. Why, because we have become a nation of Karen's that are only willing to gossip about problems but do absolutely nothing to fix the problem because they are too lazy to get involved! Open your eyes,watch your surroundings and see something and do something! All of these situations have started at home because of a total breakdown of family structure. The problems then head to school where nothing is done to fix the home or school situation. Upon no effective mental health intervention the individual starts into a dark spiral.Fix the family equation, fix reporting of mental health problems, ban computer games that desensitize children by rewarding them by killing ! Children have become de sensitized by such games.Some can differentiate from fantasy and reality and others can't that's the issue. Please think about my thoughts and please try and help the situation. Because these are not normal thinking individuals I'm worried that if we remove there guns as weapons what are they going to use to commit these horrible crimes with next??? In closing I say Mental Health!!!!

People don't typically (328 out of 328) decide, I wanna kill a bunch of people and go get in their car and drive down the street murdering people. It is not efficient.

Instead they say, "I think I want to kill a bunch of people" and they go get an AR-15. (MOST mass shooting that is the weapon of choice) What is the difference? One is large and can get most places where people congregate, guns are designed to kill (some people like to kill watermelons with them) and do it quickly and efficiently and they are easy to get into locations where lots of people are in close quarters.

Yes, the question of WHY that people decided to kill a bunch of people is a better question than what they used. But, in order to figure out why we have to gather information and study it and come to conclusions. We were going to do that, then a party got into office and make it illegal to study gun related deaths - care to guess which party?

[MartinSE]

It is my God given right to defend myself. It is reaffirmed in the 2nd Amendment. But the 2nd Amendment is also there to protect us from a tyrannical government. And only a tyrannical government would disarm it's citizens.

There should be strict enforcement of gun laws, and the consequence of violating them should be severe punishment, and IMHO, in many cases the death penalty applied. But then the leftists would say that certain minorities would be impacted, and that's not fair. Others would say that it's too cruel and unusual punishment.

Let's take the emotion out of the argument, express only the facts, and apply logic to eliminate the problem.

I will agree to take emotion out, if you agree to take god out. Our government/country is secular, and I believe all "rights" are government given.

[Joe C.]

I will agree to take emotion out, if you agree to take god out. Our government/country is secular, and I believe all "rights" are government given.

We are endowed by our Creator, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Or so the document says. And I believe that our Creator, is God.

[JMintzer]

Actually not true. Let’s take that statement to its extreme, to make my point. If you have two guys armed in a gymnasium full of children, and one has an AR-15, and the other has a 6-shooter, who is going to kill more humans in 60 seconds? Who is going to have to pause often to reload, to give police the opportunity to shoot him? Who’s victims will likely live (even though they were shot) because the holes are addressable by doctors, whereas they other guys bullets explode inside the body creating massive trauma to many organs, including ripping off limbs and decapitating victims?

The CAPABILITY of the gun IS THE ISSUE!!!!

Cho, the VA Tech shooter, killed over 30 ADULTS, armed only with 2 handguns, a .22 and a 9mm... He reloaded multiple times...

[MartinSE]

We are endowed by our Creator, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Or so the document says. And I believe that our Creator, is God.

I am glad you believe in god. I don't. The quote is from the Declaration of Independence and has/had NO legal weight. I think you were implying it was from the constitution - which NEVER directly mentions God or Devine.

So, I will continue to say, the government grants rights in the constitution/Bill of Rights.

[JMintzer]

The main purpose of the 2nd amendment is to have a ready armed “militia” if needed, instead of having to employ a federal army. You had to register to be in the militia, and what arms you had were monitored and the gov could take them away if you were taken of the register. Under no circumstances, is the citizens of the USA (armed as they may) going to win a fight with the US military. Never going to happen. They don’t have the resources or expertise of advance artillery that the military has. Therefore, it’s a moot point to keep saying the 2nd amendment is to keep the government in check.. Haaaaa dream on about that thought…

They said the same thing in Viet Nam and Afghanistan...

And no, you didn't have to "register" to be in the militia...The militia was every able bodied man...

And no, the purpose of the 2A was NOT to have a "ready armed militia"...

[JMintzer]

People don't typically (328 out of 328) decide, I wanna kill a bunch of people and go get in their car and drive down the street murdering people. It is not efficient.

Instead they say, "I think I want to kill a bunch of people" and they go get an AR-15. (MOST mass shooting that is the weapon of choice) What is the difference? One is large and can get most places where people congregate, guns are designed to kill (some people like to kill watermelons with them) and do it quickly and efficiently and they are easy to get into locations where lots of people are in close quarters.

Yes, the question of WHY that people decided to kill a bunch of people is a better question than what they used. But, in order to figure out why we have to gather information and study it and come to conclusions. We were going to do that, then a party got into office and make it illegal to study gun related deaths - care to guess which party?

Copycat crimes...

[JMintzer]

I will agree to take emotion out, if you agree to take god out. Our government/country is secular, and I believe all "rights" are government given.

Well, good thing the Constitution doesn't say that...

[bluecenturian]

As someone who works in the court system, they are a major part of the problem.

If a violent criminal pleads to a charge that “withholds adjudication” then they are not considered “convicted.” This is why someone who committed a crime with a weapon can “legally” buy a gun after he gets out of jail.

As a pro gun/2A supporter I find this loophole a disgrace. A person who is not exonerated from a felony charge, ie convicted or takes a plea, should be prohibited from purchasing a gun.

[Johnsocat]

Just some data...
45 states are open carry. 3 of which are considered to be the safest in our Nation: Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont
21.5 Million concealed carry permits in our Nation - of which, only approximately 3 Million of which carry every day.

[ThirdOfFive]

It's not all politicians, only the Republicans, who are supported by the gun lobbyists and gun manufacturers. It's all about money and greed. The US has more guns than population and more gun violence than the rest of the world.
Actually that would be Honduras, which has a gun-related homicide incidence per 100,000 of 60 per year. The U.S. has a little more than one-fifth of that, or 12.1 gun-related homicides per 100,000 per year.

[Burgy]

Automatic weapons have been illegal for almost 100 Years now.

Then we should add SEMI to the list, they certainly seem overly fast and powerful.

[Caymus]

I will agree to take emotion out, if you agree to take god out. Our government/country is secular, and I believe all "rights" are government given.


It must pain you to be near US currency,

[Dantes]

Well you are not a hunter Oregon owner
One thing you do not own an automatic you must have a federal license and special reason to have them because they are military type weapons they are not readily available for the public

[billethkid]

Then we should add SEMI to the list, they certainly seem overly fast and powerful.

Then there are revolvers..... that are single action and can fire as fast as one can pull the trigger??

The "problem" is not the gun type!!

[taruffi57]

We have mllions of young males whose childhood entertainment has been violent video games. Also tough-guy movies where shooting people is the main action. What should we expect, when some of those young males are either not properly guided/influenced during their upbringing, or bullied, or had no Father around? It's not the gun.

[ThirdOfFive]

Actually not true. Let’s take that statement to its extreme, to make my point. If you have two guys armed in a gymnasium full of children, and one has an AR-15, and the other has a 6-shooter, who is going to kill more humans in 60 seconds? Who is going to have to pause often to reload, to give police the opportunity to shoot him? Who’s victims will likely live (even though they were shot) because the holes are addressable by doctors, whereas they other guys bullets explode inside the body creating massive trauma to many organs, including ripping off limbs and decapitating victims?

The CAPABILITY of the gun IS THE ISSUE!!!!
What the above apparently refers to is the "R.I.P. round" which refers to a bullet that explodes when inside the body. Only problem is, they don't exist.

Well, that's not EXACTLY true. They did exist at one time for military purposes, but as an anti-personnel round they've been pretty much prohibited since the St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868, which specifically prohibits the use of “any projectile of a weight below 400 grammes, which is either explosive or charged with fulminating or inflammable substances” (ihl database ICRC "Rule 78. The anti-personnel use of bullets which explode within the human body is prohibited.")

The .223 Remington round, which is the round most of the AR-type rifles shoot, does not explode. It is actually pretty diminutive; the usual round is 55 grains which is just a bit larger in weight than the .22 LR round which tops out at 40 grains. Interestingly the .223 and the .22 LR are both the same CALIBER. But neither round "explodes". The .223 Remington does do more damage but that is due mainly to bullet velocity which causes cavitation, something the .22 LR round does not do, at least not to the same extent (though both can leave pretty impressive exit wounds).

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Just some data...
45 states are open carry. 3 of which are considered to be the safest in our Nation: Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont
21.5 Million concealed carry permits in our Nation - of which, only approximately 3 Million of which carry every day.

Other than very limited pockets of those three states, MOST people who have open carry licenses in Maine, NH, and VT don't actually open carry - except when they're out hunting.

That's the difference, I think. The mentality behind the communities in which open carry is permitted. Most CIVILIZED people don't walk around downtown Plymouth NH sporting an AR-15 strapped to their shoulder, or a pistol on their belt holster.

Yes, they can. But no, they don't.

When we get to a point in time in society when people in uncivilized areas (yeah I'm talking about Florida and Texas and Illinois) can CHOOSE to NOT open carry, that'll be the time when it's perfectly fine to permit it.

[Taurus510]

Actually not true. Let’s take that statement to its extreme, to make my point. If you have two guys armed in a gymnasium full of children, and one has an AR-15, and the other has a 6-shooter, who is going to kill more humans in 60 seconds? Who is going to have to pause often to reload, to give police the opportunity to shoot him? Who’s victims will likely live (even though they were shot) because the holes are addressable by doctors, whereas they other guys bullets explode inside the body creating massive trauma to many organs, including ripping off limbs and decapitating victims?

The CAPABILITY of the gun IS THE ISSUE!!!!
I’m a headin’ down to the shootin’ store and gittin’ me some them explodin’ bullits. Didn’t know they was a sellin’ them thangs!

[ThirdOfFive]

Copycat crimes...
Yup.

With the AR-15 style rifle being the weapon of choice.

This is precisely what happens when media sensationalize, rather than just report, the news.

[Blackbird45]

Good thing no one uses an assault firearm for hunting... And I can't find a single instance where one was used in self defense, either...

Now AR-15s, otoh, are used to hunt quite often and have been in self defense many times...

Here's an ad for the AR-15 from the early 60's...

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/13434807_1383807998301784_6909590571140954570_n.jp g

What I said was these firearms were not designed for the hunting and personal self-defense. What they are used for or advertised to be used for is another matter. These firearms are considered assault weapons. Look up the meaning of the word assault and it might give you a different perspective.
We've seen people who have no intent of firing their firearm show up to state capitals just to intimidate law makers. Is that the way this country is supposed to work?

[Sarah_W]

The weapon of choice is AR-15. PERIOD. That is not debatable.



Martin, you keep saying this and it is absolutely false. According to the Violence Project, DOJ, FBI, and many other databases 77.2% of mass shooting are done with handguns.
Public Mass Shootings: Database Amasses Details of a Half Century of U.S. Mass Shootings with Firearms, Generating Psychosocial Histories | National Institute of Justice (https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/public-mass-shootings-database-amasses-details-half-century-us-mass-shootings)

It frustrates me that every time there this discussion ensues people who know nothing about firearms have plenty to say about firearms and NEVER discuss the shooter.

There are over 20,000,000 AR type rifles in the US and when 1 is used in a mass shooting the media makes a huge issue of it. If a different firearm is used they don't even mention it. Then the gun haters go bonkers on forums like this.

If your home remodel looks like crap do you blame the hammer or the person wielding the hammer?

How many schools shooting happened before 1999 (Columbine)?
1764, four Lenape Indians attacked a school and killed 10 people (9 children).
1868 Chattnooga, TN, 3 dead.
1891 Newburgh, NY several student injured by a shotgun.
1927, Bath, MI. 43 killed when the schools was blown up by dynamite (deadliest school murder in history).
1940 Pasadena, CA. 5 dead, 2 injured

All of the mass shootings to this point were done by an older adult who was either an angry employee or jilted lover. In 1966, things changed.

1966, University of Texas massacre, 16 dead, 31 injured in 96 minute rampage.
1970 Kent State University, National Guardsman killed 4 students, injure 9 students
1970 Jackson State College, Police kill 2 students, injure 12 students.
1974 Olean NY, 3 dead, 11 injured
1976 Cal State Fullerton, 7 dead, 2 injured, first school shooting with semi-auto rifle.
1979 Grover Cleveland Elementary, 2 dead, 9 injured
1985 Detroit, 6 injured
1986 Cokeville Elementary, $300 million ransom scheme went wrong when explosives were accidentally detonated. 2 dead, 78 injured.
1988 Winetka, IL, 2 dead, 6 injured
1989 Stockton, CA, Cleveland School massacre, 5 dead, 29 injured
1992 Olivehurst, CA, 4 dead, 10 injured
1997 Pearl, MS, 2 dead, 7 injured. Killer was said to be a Satan worshipper
1997 West Padukah, KY, 3 dead, 5 injured
1998 Jonesboro, AR. 5 dead, 10 inured (my hometown, coincidentally)
1998 Springfield, OR. 2 dead, 22 injured

1999 Columbine High School. 14 dead, 27 injured in a 4 hour rampage. The shooters plotted for a year with the goal of killing 500.

In my opinion the turning point is Columbine. This seems to be the starting point for copy cat killers trying to make a name for themselves. Since Columbine there has been 14 mass school shootings, up to Robb Elementary, taking 169 lives and injuring many more.

Anyone who would kill children is a deranged individual. Whether they use a semi auto handgun, explosives, or AR style rifles the end result is the same. If someone kills my child the instrument is not the problem. As I said before, if you want to stop mass shootings, don't allow men to have guns. Women aren't doing these mass shootings. Obviously, I'm basing that comment on statistics. I still don't believe that will solve the problem. Deranged people will find another way to become "famous". I believe in their mind famous and infamous is one in the same.

I also believe we should consider common sense First Amendment control. The media does not take responsibility for the way they are glorifying these killings. Stop publicizing these killings and the copy cats will stop.

The definition of a mass shooting keeps changing to suit the narrative of gun haters. If a man shoots his wife, two children and himself it is listed as a mass shooting instead of a murder suicide. Gangs drive by a rival gangs home or location and shoots 4 or more people it is listed as a mass shooting instead of gang violence. Artificially inflating the numbers does nothing to solve society's problems. The DOJ defines a mass shooting as 4 or more victims.

[Sarah_W]

The first step in solving a problem is to identify the problem. Is the gun really the problem or is it a symptom of the problem.

Exactly correct. After spending 30 years in Quality Management where our task really is problem solving there are great tools that can be used to figure out such an issue. Cause and Effect diagrams look at the elements of a process. Make no mistake, committing a crime is a process. The elements are: Manpower, Methods, Machines, Materials, and Environment. Each of these elements will have several components. We then perform a FMEA, Failure Mode and Effects Analysis which statistically identifies where to begin to put in measures of control. Keep in mind that there would also have to be a balance of Cost/Benefit analysis as well as Constitutional Rights.

We should all be concerned when Majority Rules wants to dominate Minority Rights.

[Sarah_W]

Actually not true. Let’s take that statement to its extreme, to make my point. If you have two guys armed in a gymnasium full of children, and one has an AR-15, and the other has a 6-shooter, who is going to kill more humans in 60 seconds? Who is going to have to pause often to reload, to give police the opportunity to shoot him? Who’s victims will likely live (even though they were shot) because the holes are addressable by doctors, whereas they other guys bullets explode inside the body creating massive trauma to many organs, including ripping off limbs and decapitating victims?

The CAPABILITY of the gun IS THE ISSUE!!!!

I will respectfully disagree with all of the above. Since you like "extremes" I am confident that if I give you an AR and as many rounds as you can carry, and give Jerry Miculek a six shot revolver with as many rounds as he can carry, he will out shoot you by a very wide margin in 60 seconds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzHG-ibZaKM

[MartinSE]

Martin, you keep saying this and it is absolutely false. According to the Violence Project, DOJ, FBI, and many other databases 77.2% of mass shooting are done with handguns.
Public Mass Shootings: Database Amasses Details of a Half Century of U.S. Mass Shootings with Firearms, Generating Psychosocial Histories | National Institute of Justice (https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/public-mass-shootings-database-amasses-details-half-century-us-mass-shootings)

It frustrates me that every time there this discussion ensues people who know nothing about firearms have plenty to say about firearms and NEVER discuss the shooter.

There are over 20,000,000 AR type rifles in the US and when 1 is used in a mass shooting the media makes a huge issue of it. If a different firearm is used they don't even mention it. Then the gun haters go bonkers on forums like this.

If your home remodel looks like crap do you blame the hammer or the person wielding the hammer?

How many schools shooting happened before 1999 (Columbine)?
1764, four Lenape Indians attacked a school and killed 10 people (9 children).
1868 Chattnooga, TN, 3 dead.
1891 Newburgh, NY several student injured by a shotgun.
1927, Bath, MI. 43 killed when the schools was blown up by dynamite (deadliest school murder in history).
1940 Pasadena, CA. 5 dead, 2 injured

All of the mass shootings to this point were done by an older adult who was either an angry employee or jilted lover. In 1966, things changed.

1966, University of Texas massacre, 16 dead, 31 injured in 96 minute rampage.
1970 Kent State University, National Guardsman killed 4 students, injure 9 students
1970 Jackson State College, Police kill 2 students, injure 12 students.
1974 Olean NY, 3 dead, 11 injured
1976 Cal State Fullerton, 7 dead, 2 injured, first school shooting with semi-auto rifle.
1979 Grover Cleveland Elementary, 2 dead, 9 injured
1985 Detroit, 6 injured
1986 Cokeville Elementary, $300 million ransom scheme went wrong when explosives were accidentally detonated. 2 dead, 78 injured.
1988 Winetka, IL, 2 dead, 6 injured
1989 Stockton, CA, Cleveland School massacre, 5 dead, 29 injured
1992 Olivehurst, CA, 4 dead, 10 injured
1997 Pearl, MS, 2 dead, 7 injured. Killer was said to be a Satan worshipper
1997 West Padukah, KY, 3 dead, 5 injured
1998 Jonesboro, AR. 5 dead, 10 inured (my hometown, coincidentally)
1998 Springfield, OR. 2 dead, 22 injured

1999 Columbine High School. 14 dead, 27 injured in a 4 hour rampage. The shooters plotted for a year with the goal of killing 500.

In my opinion the turning point is Columbine. This seems to be the starting point for copy cat killers trying to make a name for themselves. Since Columbine there has been 14 mass school shootings, up to Robb Elementary, taking 169 lives and injuring many more.

Anyone who would kill children is a deranged individual. Whether they use a semi auto handgun, explosives, or AR style rifles the end result is the same. If someone kills my child the instrument is not the problem. As I said before, if you want to stop mass shootings, don't allow men to have guns. Women aren't doing these mass shootings. Obviously, I'm basing that comment on statistics. I still don't believe that will solve the problem. Deranged people will find another way to become "famous". I believe in their mind famous and infamous is one in the same.

I also believe we should consider common sense First Amendment control. The media does not take responsibility for the way they are glorifying these killings. Stop publicizing these killings and the copy cats will stop.

The definition of a mass shooting keeps changing to suit the narrative of gun haters. If a man shoots his wife, two children and himself it is listed as a mass shooting instead of a murder suicide. Gangs drive by a rival gangs home or location and shoots 4 or more people it is listed as a mass shooting instead of gang violence. Artificially inflating the numbers does nothing to solve society's problems. The DOJ defines a mass shooting as 4 or more victims.

EDITED: I went back and checked. What I had remembered was the AR-15 was the weapon of choice for school shootings. And Hand guns for all mass shootings.

I apologize, I feel like I switched to a parallel universe. I would have sworn that I found several references and over 70% of mass shootings were semi-automatic rifles and over 70% of homicides were hand guns.

I stand corrected. Than you.

I now a bit about guns, having qualified as Expert in Marine bootcamp, having competed after I got out for a while, and hunting most of my life.

I apologize for that mix up, I don't know why I confused those numbers.

[Sarah_W]

I am glad you believe in god. I don't. The quote is from the Declaration of Independence and has/had NO legal weight. I think you were implying it was from the constitution - which NEVER directly mentions God or Devine.

So, I will continue to say, the government grants rights in the constitution/Bill of Rights.

It seems there is an equally misunderstanding our our Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights. The Declaration outlines the principles our Constitution was written to. All 27 grievances listed in the Declaration are covered within the Articles of the Constitution. Our government DOES not "grant" our rights. Our Bill of Rights delineates unalienable rights. These are natural rights that all living beings are born with by nature. Our government is tasked with protecting the Bill of Rights and doesn't do a very good job of that. Please understand what "shall not infringe" means.

The powers given to our federal government are outlined in the Constitution. That document sets the limitation of federal government. All other powers are reserved to the States and the People, respectively.

For all who are interested. I am in the process of creating a Constitution club in The Villages. I believe we absolutely have gotten away from our Freedom documents as it is not studied in schools, as it once was. Civics understand is abysmal in our citizenry.

[MartinSE]

The definition of a mass shooting keeps changing to suit the narrative of gun haters. If a man shoots his wife, two children and himself it is listed as a mass shooting instead of a murder suicide. Gangs drive by a rival gangs home or location and shoots 4 or more people it is listed as a mass shooting instead of gang violence. Artificially inflating the numbers does nothing to solve society's problems. The DOJ defines a mass shooting as 4 or more victims.

Yes, the definition does keep changing. And yes, I hate guns. I think the biggest mistake in our countries history was the 2nd amendment. But, I am also realistic and know that the horses have left the barn, we are not going to collect and do away with guns. So, I prefer to try for gun regulations that can help - like universal background checks.

I personally don't think much of the argument that we have a right to protect ourselves from the government. Bullocks. That is a relatively new interpretation of the 2nd and was created to rile up the base.

[MartinSE]

It seems there is an equally misunderstanding our our Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights. The Declaration outlines the principles our Constitution was written to. All 27 grievances listed in the Declaration are covered within the Articles of the Constitution. Our government DOES not "grant" our rights. Our Bill of Rights delineates unalienable rights. These are natural rights that all living beings are born with by nature. Our government is tasked with protecting the Bill of Rights and doesn't do a very good job of that. Please understand what "shall not infringe" means.

The powers given to our federal government are outlined in the Constitution. That document sets the limitation of federal government. All other powers are reserved to the States and the People, respectively.

For all who are interested. I am in the process of creating a Constitution club in The Villages. I believe we absolutely have gotten away from our Freedom documents as it is not studied in schools, as it once was. Civics understand is abysmal in our citizenry.

The Bill or Rights is a part of the constitution, and the Declaration of Independence has no legal weight, which is what I said.

You can believe in a "natural" source of rights if you want. I don't care, but the nature has nothing to do with government. Pushing for that leads to theocracy and theocracy never ends well.

[Sarah_W]

Yes, the definition does keep changing. And yes, I hate guns. I think the biggest mistake in our countries history was the 2nd amendment. But, I am also realistic and know that the horses have left the barn, we are not going to collect and do away with guns. So, I prefer to try for gun regulations that can help - like universal background checks.

I personally don't think much of the argument that we have a right to protect ourselves from the government. Bullocks. That is a relatively new interpretation of the 2nd and was created to rile up the base.

Our Founding Fathers stated otherwise. They discussed it at length in their debates, writings and letters between each other. Madison and Jefferson wrote over 1,200 letters to each other discussing Rights, our governments, etc. I have them all.

We need to have a very fundamental understanding of individual rights, state rights, and federal powers. That is seriously lacking today.

Being a former Marine I have to say I'm surprised you hate guns. Let's go to the range sometime and see if I can change that perspective.

[Sarah_W]

The Bill or Rights is a part of the constitution, and the Declaration of Independence has no legal weight, which is what I said.

You can believe in a "natural" source of rights if you want. I don't care, but the nature has nothing to do with government. Pushing for that leads to theocracy and theocracy never ends well.

First, I apologize because I don't know how to do a multi quote in this forum.

The Bill of Rights is a stand alone document, a separate addition to the Constitution. Three of our Framers refused to sign the Constitution that they helped to write because Rights were not written into it. There was a reason for that which was many of our Framers didn't want to write them directly into the Constitution as it might be construed that those listed were the only rights we have as citizens. The compromise was to write another document. 17 Amendments were proposed to the House of Representatives which were sent to the Senate. The Senate rewrote them and reduced the number to 12 and sent them to the State Legislatures. As we know, 10 were approved by the States and adopted as our Bill of Rights. In 1976, one of the remaining two was approved which allowed Congress to give itself a raise.

People also misunderstand the numbering. The rights were not created in order of importance. The First Amendment as we know it was originally #3 and #4:

#3: Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of conscience be infringed.

#4: The freedom of speech, and of the press, and the right of the people peaceably to assemble and consult for their common good, and to apply to the government for redress of grievances, shall not be infringed.

What we now know as the Second Amendment was originally #5.

#5: A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.

Our Federal Courts absolutely look at intent in our laws and they consider the Declaration of Independence to understand that original intent. With that said, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, where as the Declaration is not law. It does help establish intent, however.

[ThirdOfFive]

I will respectfully disagree with all of the above. Since you like "extremes" I am confident that if I give you an AR and as many rounds as you can carry, and give Jerry Miculek a six shot revolver with as many rounds as he can carry, he will out shoot you by a very wide margin in 60 seconds.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzHG-ibZaKM
Excellent video. Training counts.

It is a pointless argument in any case. A Jerry Miculek with a revolver is obviously going to outshoot some deranged kid with an AR-15. But if you want to do maximum damage a shotgun is by far the best weapon. A 12-gauge shotgun with a magazine extension can hold up to eight shells. An average 3" round can hold 11 single-0 pellets. 8 X 11 means that you can throw 88 30-caliber balls of lead or copper downrange in probably 4 seconds or less.

Trouble is, a 12-gauge shotgun doesn't LOOK anywhere near as intimidating as an AR-15.

Well, I suppose it could become that, if media decides to sensationalize 12-gauge shotguns the way they have AR-15s.

[gbs317]

An interesting idea, but waiting for that to happen could take a long time.

We need to look at the data. There are many countries with different approaches, and even within the US many states and towns. The police deal with this problem a lot - how do they feel about everyone being armed with a gun and open carry? How do the citizens feel about it?

Personally I don’t feel safe to see everyone I encounter in the street with a gun by their side - too many crazies out there with hair triggers. But locked away in a safe at home - that seems to meet most people’s requirement for safety and ability to bear arms.

An AR-15 shouldn’t be available to 18 year olds period. That should be an easy fix in our laws.

You mentioned an 18 year old should not own an AR-15… but we can ask them to fight for our country for our freedoms. Most people believe AR stands for automatic rifle or assault rifle, it does not. I can take a 10/22 rifle (22lr) buy a AR type stock and make that 22lr look like an AR but it is still a 22 that shoots the same as the original 10/22. So banning the AR-15 is not a solution. I do agree that large capacity magazines are not necessary, if you need 30 rounds of ammo to hit a target give it up, or better yet, practice with either three 10 round magazines or six 5 round magazines to learn how to safely handle that firearm.
I read a lot of good idea’s here and imo we need to focus on how we raise our children to respect life from the beginning. We need to be aware of the signs when our young are showing signs of anti social behavior, should I say it, by invading their social habits. Train teachers, doctors, police, etc.. in signs of abuse that can change a child into one that seeks revenge on society and not be afraid to let authorities know so that help can be given immediately.
Background checks, cool off periods, reasonable magazine restrictions and maybe mental evaluations are the answers, banning guns are not.
I enjoy bullseye, long range, and various target sports. I’m also a firm believer in my right to carry and protect my family.

[Joe C.]

Other than very limited pockets of those three states, MOST people who have open carry licenses in Maine, NH, and VT don't actually open carry - except when they're out hunting.

That's the difference, I think. The mentality behind the communities in which open carry is permitted. Most CIVILIZED people don't walk around downtown Plymouth NH sporting an AR-15 strapped to their shoulder, or a pistol on their belt holster.

Yes, they can. But no, they don't.

When we get to a point in time in society when people in uncivilized areas (yeah I'm talking about Florida and Texas and Illinois) can CHOOSE to NOT open carry, that'll be the time when it's perfectly fine to permit it.
Vermont doesn't issue gun permits to it's residents. It's their constitutional right to carry. I preferred concealed carry as opposed to open carry. The bad guy doesn't know if you are armed or not.
When I hunted Vermont, I open carried a pistol. I remember stopping at a gas station, and on the other side of the pump was a car with New Jersey tags. The woman passenger, upon seeing me, proclaimed to her (I assume) husband "Oh God, he's got a gun"! I thought it was hilarious.......

[collegeref]

Boston was not guns was it ?

How about Oklahoma They wish it was guns we would have survivors.

If only somebody had a gun
on the 911 flight that crashed in PA

This latest nut got green flagged in a Red Flag Law state.

[JMintzer]

Actually that would be Honduras, which has a gun-related homicide incidence per 100,000 of 60 per year. The U.S. has a little more than one-fifth of that, or 12.1 gun-related homicides per 100,000 per year.

Bill Whittle does a very in depth look at this fact...

Warning... Sarcasm ahead... https://youtu.be/pELwCqz2JfE

[JMintzer]

Then we should add SEMI to the list, they certainly seem overly fast and powerful.

Yes, my "semi" auto .22 is MUCH more powerful than any .22 bolt action or revolver... [/sarcasm]

And faster? How's 8 rounds in 1 second? 12 shots in under 3 seconds? With a REVOLVER...

https://youtu.be/WzHG-ibZaKM

[JMintzer]

What I said was these firearms were not designed for the hunting and personal self-defense. What they are used for or advertised to be used for is another matter. These firearms are considered assault weapons. Look up the meaning of the word assault and it might give you a different perspective.
We've seen people who have no intent of firing their firearm show up to state capitals just to intimidate law makers. Is that the way this country is supposed to work?

Using your definition, ANY gun can be considered an assault weapon...

Using the US Government's definition, the AR-15 is NOT an assault weapon.

[JMintzer]

1999 Columbine High School. 14 dead, 27 injured in a 4 hour rampage. The shooters plotted for a year with the goal of killing 500.

In my opinion the turning point is Columbine. This seems to be the starting point for copy cat killers trying to make a name for themselves. Since Columbine there has been 14 mass school shootings, up to Robb Elementary, taking 169 lives and injuring many more.

Weapons used in Columbine shooting? A 9mm semi-auto handgun, two sawed off shotguns (one, a double barrel, the other a pump action), and finally, a 9mm carbine rifle...

[JMintzer]

I personally don't think much of the argument that we have a right to protect ourselves from the government. Bullocks. That is a relatively new interpretation of the 2nd and was created to rile up the base.

Shirley you jest... That was a major point of the amendment, considering the fledgling country had just finished a bloody, multi-year war against a tyrannical government!

[JMintzer]

Excellent video. Training counts.

It is a pointless argument in any case. A Jerry Miculek with a revolver is obviously going to outshoot some deranged kid with an AR-15. But if you want to do maximum damage a shotgun is by far the best weapon. A 12-gauge shotgun with a magazine extension can hold up to eight shells. An average 3" round can hold 11 single-0 pellets. 8 X 11 means that you can throw 88 30-caliber balls of lead or copper downrange in probably 4 seconds or less.

Trouble is, a 12-gauge shotgun doesn't LOOK anywhere near as intimidating as an AR-15.

Well, I suppose it could become that, if media decides to sensationalize 12-gauge shotguns the way they have AR-15s.

SHHHH! Don't give them any ideas!

[JMintzer]

I do agree that large capacity magazines are not necessary, if you need 30 rounds of ammo to hit a target give it up, or better yet, practice with either three 10 round magazines or six 5 round magazines to learn how to safely handle that firearm.

What happens when you have multiple targets, returning fire? Do you still want to limit your own capacity?

[ThirdOfFive]

Shirley you jest... That was a major point of the amendment, considering the fledgling country had just finished a bloody, multi-year war against a tyrannical government!
""When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." (John Basil Barnhill)

[rsimpson]

I used to be a hunter and really would not want anyone to stop me from having my hunting guns. I could even see the potential reason for personal handguns for self defense. BUT I do feel that there needs to be much more control on automatic guns and long range rifles. Why can't our politician see that there are different guns for different purposes and band, or at least strongly control, any weapon that could be used for mass murders! Gun violence has gotten OUT OF CONTROL!

Your reasonable argument/comment is damaged by your use of the phrase 'automatic guns and long range rifles.' Automatic weapons are already fully restricted with an expensive and lenghty ownership path. And there is no common definition for 'long range rifle' (What is that??) None of these mass shooters since Sandy Hook and before have used either of these weapon types you mention. We need to have an open conversation about these violoent acts by deranged and evil people, but we have to start with facts.

[rsimpson]

This always comes up?

WHO is taken guns from law bidding citizens? I would love it, but even I know that is a none starter. But, people constantly bring it up, fear is a real motivator.

Many politicians and left-wing activists have openly stated they are "coming for your guns". Eric Swallwell, Beto O'Rourke, Diane Feinstein, for starters. I am sure the list goes on.

[rsimpson]

Then we should add SEMI to the list, they certainly seem overly fast and powerful.

Most Hunting Rifles are semi-automatic, and nobody is ever gonna collect all of those from legal gun owners in the U.S.

[rsimpson]

Boston was not guns was it ?
How about Oklahoma They wish it was guns we would have survivors.
If only somebody had a gun
on the 911 flight that crashed in PA
This latest nut got green flagged in a Red Flag Law state.

Father of Highland Park shooter should go to prison for skirting the red flag laws for his mentally ill son.

[Sarah_W]

What happens when you have multiple targets, returning fire? Do you still want to limit your own capacity?

Exactly. According to FBI crime statistics the average home invasion is 3 to 5 armed intruders. If a person is defending their home how many rounds does it take?

I can say, as a professional firearms instructor, if a person is defending their life the adrenaline spike is going to be off the charts, their hands will be shaking uncontrollably, and there will be plenty of missed shots.

Personally, I do not want a limit on the number of rounds, the capacity, of my personal defense choice. Chances are high that in a home invasion you will likely have to do a magazine change.

I'm very confident that nobody ever lamented about having too much ammunition after the gunfight was over.

[Sarah_W]

So you couldn't figure out they meant semi-automatic. The weapon of choice for school shootings is AR-15 which is a semi-automatic.

I bet the poster meant "Long Gun", which has a common definition.

The poster did start with fact, you just chose to be obtuse and argue over wording that I expect you completely understood, but ignored. If you didn't understand, after reading hundreds of mass shooting posts, well, that is sad on you.

You could have corrected their terms gently "I assume you mean semi-automatic " instead you chose to add nothing to the conversation you claim to want to have. So, while we nit pick each other's posts, children are dying.

Not true. The weapon of choice for school shootings is a handgun.

[rsimpson]

So you couldn't figure out they meant semi-automatic. The weapon of choice for school shootings is AR-15 which is a semi-automatic.

I bet the poster meant "Long Gun", which has a common definition.

The poster did start with fact, you just chose to be obtuse and argue over wording that I expect you completely understood, but ignored. If you didn't understand, after reading hundreds of mass shooting posts, well, that is sad on you.

You could have corrected their terms gently "I assume you mean semi-automatic " instead you chose to add nothing to the conversation you claim to want to have. So, while we nit pick each other's posts, children are dying.

Seriously? I should not have to FIGURE OUT what this poster is saying. When someone enters this topic of conversation, (especially) genereralizations are worthless and dangerous. Say WHAT you mean. If you mean Semi, say Semi. If you mean long gun SAY long gun. Do not attack my clarifiaction post with your instructions and RULES on how I "should have responded." Just move along and complain somewhere else. And I don't appreciate the "sad on you" comment - that seems like an attack on a poster, which is against the rules on this forum.

[Taurus510]

So you couldn't figure out they meant semi-automatic. The weapon of choice for school shootings is AR-15 which is a semi-automatic.

I bet the poster meant "Long Gun", which has a common definition.

The poster did start with fact, you just chose to be obtuse and argue over wording that I expect you completely understood, but ignored. If you didn't understand, after reading hundreds of mass shooting posts, well, that is sad on you.

You could have corrected their terms gently "I assume you mean semi-automatic " instead you chose to add nothing to the conversation you claim to want to have. So, while we nit pick each other's posts, children are dying.
Words matter. I’m shocked at how many people actually believe that semi-automatic rifles are not fully automatic. They do not understand the distinction. And to state that you used to be a hunter, then use automatic instead of semi-automatic, then follow up with long range(?) rifles tells an experienced gun handler that you’re not an ex hunter. You’re someone stating that you are so you can come across as “reasonable”.

[rjdfitzpatrick@aol.com]

I used to be a hunter and really would not want anyone to stop me from having my hunting guns. I could even see the potential reason for personal handguns for self defense. BUT I do feel that there needs to be much more control on automatic guns and long range rifles. Why can't our politician see that there are different guns for different purposes and band, or at least strongly control, any weapon that could be used for mass murders! Gun violence has gotten OUT OF CONTROL!The second amendment was never about hunting

[Reiver]

Excellent video. Training counts.

It is a pointless argument in any case. A Jerry Miculek with a revolver is obviously going to outshoot some deranged kid with an AR-15. But if you want to do maximum damage a shotgun is by far the best weapon. A 12-gauge shotgun with a magazine extension can hold up to eight shells. An average 3" round can hold 11 single-0 pellets. 8 X 11 means that you can throw 88 30-caliber balls of lead or copper downrange in probably 4 seconds or less.

Trouble is, a 12-gauge shotgun doesn't LOOK anywhere near as intimidating as an AR-15.

Well, I suppose it could become that, if media decides to sensationalize 12-gauge shotguns the way they have AR-15s.

You can also obtain an 8 shot speed reloading tube and refill that shotgun in seconds.

[mtdjed]

So you couldn't figure out they meant semi-automatic. The weapon of choice for school shootings is AR-15 which is a semi-automatic.

I bet the poster meant "Long Gun", which has a common definition.

The poster did start with fact, you just chose to be obtuse and argue over wording that I expect you completely understood, but ignored. If you didn't understand, after reading hundreds of mass shooting posts, well, that is sad on you.

You could have corrected their terms gently "I assume you mean semi-automatic " instead you chose to add nothing to the conversation you claim to want to have. So, while we nit pick each other's posts, children are dying.

Well, we know who the expert is about guns and how to respond gently! So, long, powerful, assault, semi-automatic, automatic are all discussed, and all can kill people if used by a deranged person. This threads origin didn't even start with knowledge of what weapon was used. But what we now hear is that all the weapons this "EVIL" person bought were legal weapons. So, argue if you wish, but also consider that the weapons are said to be legally purchased by a person who supposedly was suicidal, and threatened to kill people in the past. And he still was approved to buy firearms. What it proves is that the approval process did not work well or at all. So, while the sides line up with their positions regarding types of guns are legal or not, it seems that a more significant point is our inability to even conduct a background check. Sounds like the government let us down by rubber stamp rules that would allow any nutcase to buy whatever they want legally. What was the procedure used for the background check? Who was the person who approved the request? Not saying that the nutcase would have been stopped by rejection, but quit fooling us and blaming only the firearm.

[JMintzer]

Exactly. According to FBI crime statistics the average home invasion is 3 to 5 armed intruders. If a person is defending their home how many rounds does it take?

I can say, as a professional firearms instructor, if a person is defending their life the adrenaline spike is going to be off the charts, their hands will be shaking uncontrollably, and there will be plenty of missed shots.

Personally, I do not want a limit on the number of rounds, the capacity, of my personal defense choice. Chances are high that in a home invasion you will likely have to do a magazine change.

I'm very confident that nobody ever lamented about having too much ammunition after the gunfight was over.

Yup. According to police statistics, the "well trained" police only hit their target 30% of the time...

[JMintzer]

Seriously? I should not have to FIGURE OUT what this poster is saying. When someone enters this topic of conversation, (especially) genereralizations are worthless and dangerous. Say WHAT you mean. If you mean Semi, say Semi. If you mean long gun SAY long gun. Do not attack my clarifiaction post with your instructions and RULES on how I "should have responded." Just move along and complain somewhere else. And I don't appreciate the "sad on you" comment - that seems like an attack on a poster, which is against the rules on this forum.

Especially if you want to increase your credibility by saying "I am a hunter..."

[JMintzer]

Well, we know who the expert is about guns and how to respond gently! So, long, powerful, assault, semi-automatic, automatic are all discussed, and all can kill people if used by a deranged person. This threads origin didn't even start with knowledge of what weapon was used. But what we now hear is that all the weapons this "EVIL" person bought were legal weapons. So, argue if you wish, but also consider that the weapons are said to be legally purchased by a person who supposedly was suicidal, and threatened to kill people in the past. And he still was approved to buy firearms. What it proves is that the approval process did not work well or at all. So, while the sides line up with their positions regarding types of guns are legal or not, it seems that a more significant point is our inability to even conduct a background check. Sounds like the government let us down by rubber stamp rules that would allow any nutcase to buy whatever they want legally. What was the procedure used for the background check? Who was the person who approved the request? Not saying that the nutcase would have been stopped by rejection, but quit fooling us and blaming only the firearm.

So let's make more laws that won't be enforced...

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Let's start by enforcing the laws already on the books.

[ex34449]

BUT I do feel that there needs to be much more control on automatic guns and long range rifles. Why can't our politician see that there are different guns for different purposes and band

I had friends that used to bring their guns in their vehicles to high school and NO ONE was ever killed much less threatened with any of them. We have a mental problem, not a gun problem.
No way were you ever a hunter using these terms and no way you hunted with an "automatic gun". Maybe during a war and you were hunting the enemy... but I doubt that very much. You wouldn't use the terms that you did.

[MartinSE]

Seriously? I should not have to FIGURE OUT what this poster is saying. When someone enters this topic of conversation, (especially) genereralizations are worthless and dangerous. Say WHAT you mean. If you mean Semi, say Semi. If you mean long gun SAY long gun. Do not attack my clarifiaction post with your instructions and RULES on how I "should have responded." Just move along and complain somewhere else. And I don't appreciate the "sad on you" comment - that seems like an attack on a poster, which is against the rules on this forum.

Sorry to upset you, but you didn’t clarify, you just said they were wrong.

[MartinSE]

The second amendment was never about hunting

It also had nothing to do with personal ownership of guns. At that time no one ever questioned someone owning a gun. If you lived in the country and could afford it you had a gun.

The 2nd was all about a militia to protect the newly formed government from the loyalists. They couldn’t afford an army, so they legalized militia.

Also, there is writing indicating that the south was concerned that their slaves would run away if given the chance, so to get the south’s vote the 2nd was promised to insure the could have “militias” to keep the slaves from rebelling.

[MartinSE]

Well, we know who the expert is about guns and how to respond gently! So, long, powerful, assault, semi-automatic, automatic are all discussed, and all can kill people if used by a deranged person. This threads origin didn't even start with knowledge of what weapon was used. But what we now hear is that all the weapons this "EVIL" person bought were legal weapons. So, argue if you wish, but also consider that the weapons are said to be legally purchased by a person who supposedly was suicidal, and threatened to kill people in the past. And he still was approved to buy firearms. What it proves is that the approval process did not work well or at all. So, while the sides line up with their positions regarding types of guns are legal or not, it seems that a more significant point is our inability to even conduct a background check. Sounds like the government let us down by rubber stamp rules that would allow any nutcase to buy whatever they want legally. What was the procedure used for the background check? Who was the person who approved the request? Not saying that the nutcase would have been stopped by rejection, but quit fooling us and blaming only the firearm.

I agree with most of your post. I would 100% agree with a universal background check that included mental health considerations.

I don’t think mental health is the problem, but it contributes.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Yup. According to police statistics, the "well trained" police only hit their target 30% of the time...

Well then by all means, let's put guns into the hands of teachers in classrooms filled with children. Because they'll do a much better job of hitting their target (and not an unintended victim) than the police will.

/sarcasm

[Sarah_W]

It also had nothing to do with personal ownership of guns. At that time no one ever questioned someone owning a gun. If you lived in the country and could afford it you had a gun.

The 2nd was all about a militia to protect the newly formed government from the loyalists. They couldn’t afford an army, so they legalized militia.

Also, there is writing indicating that the south was concerned that their slaves would run away if given the chance, so to get the south’s vote the 2nd was promised to insure the could have “militias” to keep the slaves from rebelling.

Martin, I don't know where you are getting your information regarding the Constitution and our Bill of Rights, but it is just false. If you want to understand our Founding Fathers views of keeping and bearing arms simply read their written quotes below.

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."
- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Stephens Smith, son-in-law of John Adams, December 20, 1787

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

"I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence ... I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

"To disarm the people...[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

"...the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone..."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
- William Pitt (the Younger), Speech in the House of Commons, November 18, 1783

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

"This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty.... The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction."
- St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England, 1803

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance ofpower is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves."
- Thomas Paine, "Thoughts on Defensive War" in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress 750, August 17, 1789

"For it is a truth, which the experience of ages has attested, that the people are always most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 25, December 21, 1787

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
- Tench Coxe, Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

[MrChip72]

I'll probably never understand why some people have a fascination with following and being so against changing laws made up by people that died over 150 years ago.

[Reiver]

I'll probably never understand why some people have a fascination with following and being so against changing laws made up by people that died over 150 years ago.

"Thou shalt not kill"

[MartinSE]

"Thou shalt not kill"

That law was carved in stone, the constitution was written on paper with built in methods to update it as requirements changed - like slavery, women voting, etc, etc, etc.

[ThirdOfFive]

I agree with most of your post. I would 100% agree with a universal background check that included mental health considerations.

I don’t think mental health is the problem, but it contributes.
I agree that mental health (behavioral health, to use the more "in" term) should be a consideration, but--just what diagnoses would we include in that "consideration"?

The DSM-5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) lists over 300 separate diagnoses of possible behavioral health issues, everything from alien hand disorder to Alice in Wonderland syndrome to...whatever, and many of those have levels of severity within each separate diagnosis. In other words it is a slippery slope, one that has to be navigated with extreme care. It would (or should) be preceded by a great deal of education on the issue not only for the legislators who would conceivably be deciding on the issue but also on the part of the people who vote for those legislators.

But politics in America are less and less about knowledge and reason, and more and more about emotion (even hysteria) so I don't hold out much hope for that.

[Bay Kid]

People kill people. Without guns they will just find other ways to kill. Our society has lost all respect.

[Byte1]

You are conflating all murders with mass shootings. Yes, violence will happen, but I feel safe saying zero out of the 300 mass shootings this year have been committed by Bludgeons.

The weapon of choice is AR-15. PERIOD. That is not debatable.

That said, I will agree with you that melting down every AR-15 in the country/world would not stop mass shootings, they would simply switch to another weapon.

I disagree with your comment that people don't want to look at morals and social media et al. I have read numerous reports on those issues. And for the most part they show that those "symptoms" that you list are represent in almost every country in the world. And the other countries do not have 300 mass shootings this year. So, the implication is they are NOT the cause.

I personally think the cause is a feeling of hopelessness by most poor and middle class Americans. I don't think I recall a rich person EVER committing a mass shooting in this country. They are typically by people with mental health issues (one could argue that to shoot 6 strangers for not apparent reason is a form of mental illness), or people that want to strike back at others that have bullied them, or men that feel they lives out of control and a significant number are coming from an abusive relationship where they abused their wives who finally left them and got restraining orders - again, a form of feeling like their life is out of control.

So, my question is why is it that so many feel so hopeless in the richest country in the world?

My answer is predatory capitalism, BIG corporations (not small ones) that control our lives, our government and our economy and leave broken people in their wake. That is what I think it is root cause.

Actually, it IS debatable. Just because the media calls the weapon of choice in mass murders an "AR-15" does not mean it really is one. Now, you may say I am getting picky when I say that the weapons were sometimes, much like an AR-15 but not one. They are semi-automatic. However, so is most of the pistols used in murders today. A semi-automatic pistol is capable of doing just as much damage in close quarters as a semi-automatic rifle, .....and many of today's pistols are capable of using a 30 round (bullets) magazine.
You say that in one particular incident, a "good guy with a gun" did not stop the bad guy with a gun from shooting a bunch of children. Duh! How many million potential victims WERE saved by good guys with guns? You can't say because no one seems to care. Did you ever consider that maybe soft targets are just that, easy targets where laws prohibit possession of a gun on the property? I do not suggest that teachers carry guns. I do suggest that any teacher with a CCW permit, should be able to carry. If you do not trust the teacher to carry a pocket gun while working, how do you trust a teacher to take care of your children for most of the day? I do not suggest that guns are the answer to mass shootings. I do suggest that taking guns away is not the answer. What would you rather have, a young person building a bomb and taking it to school? How about an explosive vest?
No, most mass shootings are not being committed using an AR-15. That is an incorrect statement. These weapons LOOK LIKE military weapons, but there are a lot of them that "look like." I have a 22cal rifle that "looks like" a military weapon and has a 50 round magazine. Am I a threat? I've owned firearms for 60 years and never/NEVER use one criminally. None of my guns have left my control and none of them have gone on a mass shooting binge.
Someone said there are over 300 million firearms owned by civilians in the U.S. It would be interesting to know how many have been used illegally.
We do not have a gun problem in the U.S. We have a people problem. We have a mentally deficient people problem. And there is no way to eliminate that problem. All we can do is protect against that problem and the only/ONLY way to do that is to make soft targets into HARD targets. Put a tall fence around public schools with an armed guard checking folks through a gate. Just that simple and inexpensive procedure will likely eliminate almost all mass shootings in schools. Security cameras can also supplement the children's protection.
If you feel that getting rid of guns will make the children safer then I guess you feel the same way about eliminating our military to make us less likely to be invaded by another country. After all, we can't go to war without weapons, right?

[Sarah_W]

I'll probably never understand why some people have a fascination with following and being so against changing laws made up by people that died over 150 years ago.

The short answer is our Founding Fathers and their ancestors lived through terrible hardships and injustices done by the British Empire.

They were heavily taxed.

They were forced to house British soldiers. That means the government forced you to give up your bedroom, feed the soldier, clean his clothes, etc. and you had no choice. That government would send people to your home with no warrant and search your house just on their impulse.

They could be arrested on the street without a warrant and searched without probable cause.

They were not judged by a jury of their peers but a magistrate who may or may not allow you to speak on your behalf.

The list goes on. The 55 delegates who wrote our Constitution were far more educated than we are today. They studied every form of government mankind had ever produced and attempted to design a government that would not end in tyranny over the people. They valued individual Rights and sought to protect them. The result is our Constitutional Republic, an experiment that had never been done before.

As Benjamin Franklin said when asked "Doctor Franklin, what kind of government will we have?". His response, "A Republic if you can keep it.".

For those of us who study the Constitution and watch what is going on in our country there is great concern that Franklin's warning is coming to pass. I am hugely concerned the average American has little to no knowledge of our Independence, our Constitution, and our Bill of Rights. The things I read from people in forums seems indicative of that.

We are a nation of laws. The Supreme law of the land is the Constitution. It should not be taken lightly nor ignored as "it's old". We need to educate the masses once again so the wrongs of the past are not repeated. If we allow Mob Rule to overtake Minority Rights we will lose our Freedom and it will take another Revolution to get it back.

[JMintzer]

Well then by all means, let's put guns into the hands of teachers in classrooms filled with children. Because they'll do a much better job of hitting their target (and not an unintended victim) than the police will.

/sarcasm

Tell me you know nothing about shooting a gun without telling me you know nothing about shooting a gun...

[Byte1]

I'll probably never understand why some people have a fascination with following and being so against changing laws made up by people that died over 150 years ago.

Like our immigration laws that require a visa or some other vetting before entering our country? Or, about how the Constitution requires EVERY voter to be an American Citizen? Sure, why have the law if we are not going to enforce it, right? Maybe law enforcement would deter many of the crimes committed in our country. Instead of enforcing the laws of our land, folks would rather just change the laws to conform to THEIR standards.

[nn0wheremann]

Well, the problem is the 2nd amendment. There is no way our divide government can make any changes to clarify it. The is debate over the meaning, and the current SCOTUS is not about to take a point of view that favors any controls.

This thread is simply going to circle the same old arguments, and once again nothing will change.
Well, somewhere there must be found a balance between your right tho keep and bear arms in order that you can well regulate the militia, and my right to be secure in my person, house, papers, and effects, and of course our mutual, if conflicted, expectations appurtenant to those Constitutional rights. At the present time, your second amendment rights trump my fourth amendment rights, so I’ll just have to duck and cover. Kevlar tee shirts, anyone?

[Sarah_W]

Well, somewhere there must be found a balance between your right tho keep and bear arms in order that you can well regulate the militia, and my right to be secure in my person, house, papers, and effects, and of course our mutual, if conflicted, expectations appurtenant to those Constitutional rights. At the present time, your second amendment rights trump my fourth amendment rights, so I’ll just have to duck and cover. Kevlar tee shirts, anyone?

Just to be clear, your Fourth Amendment Rights protect you from the Federal government. Beyond that you look at your state Constitution, state laws and federal laws.

I think what you're trying to say is somehow the Second Amendment is impeding your security of your body and the security of your belongings. The Constitution protects your right to self defense with the Second Amendment as confirmed by the SCOTUS in McDonald, Heller, and Bruen, among others.

[frose]

very political shut it down!!!!!

[billethkid]

Like our immigration laws that require a visa or some other vetting before entering our country? Or, about how the Constitution requires EVERY voter to be an American Citizen? Sure, why have the law if we are not going to enforce it, right? Maybe law enforcement would deter many of the crimes committed in our country. Instead of enforcing the laws of our land, folks would rather just change the laws to conform to THEIR standards.

Bee-eye-en-gee-oh!!!!

[Byte1]

Just an observation:
Seems like whenever someone does not like guns, they wish to ban them for all.
Whenever someone does not believe in GOD, the wish to ban religion for all.
Whenever someone believes that laws cannot be enforced, they want to eliminate them.
If booze cannot be eliminated, then legalize it so that it can be taxed
If dope cannot be eliminated, then legalize it so that it can be taxed.

Instead of protecting the children, use them as a device to ban guns. Instead of securing the schools, go out and take everyone else's right to own firearms.
Since someone is under 21 committing a crime, then make the legal age of ownership 21 or above. Disregard the fact that we have had millions of young men, aged 16-21 serve our country honorably.
We do not believe that young people should be trusted, yet we send them off to war so that the rest of us don't have to go. We send them off to war and then tell them that when they get back, they cannot have a beer with an "adult." Send them to war and train them to use firearms, and then tell them that they cannot purchase a firearm in order to hunt when they come back. They can't be trusted in society because they are too immature to be trusted with our citizen's safety.
Like I said before and will continue to say it, to protect the children we must defend them from evil. To protect them from evil, we must fortify their schools when we are not there to protect them. You cannot predict and punish a crime that has not occurred. There is no "Minority Report" where we can arrest someone before they commit an act of violence. Good people have mental problems too. The type of weapon does not matter when it comes to violence, period.
What is so hard about installing a ten foot fence around a public school and placing an armed guard of police officer there to check those the enter? What is really so bad or awful about allowing school employees that have CCW to carry a pocket pistol that is never seen and never removed from their pocket? How much would it cost to install cameras in the schools?
Or, is it just more convenient for certain folks to blame all violence on guns so that they can ban them because they don't like them and do not want anyone else to own them?

[Sarah_W]

very political shut it down!!!!!

I disagree. Discussing Freedom, Liberty, our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, etc. is not political. That is the very foundation of the American way of life. Being patriotic and proud of your country is not political. That's life.

[rsimpson]

Just an observation:
Seems like whenever someone does not like guns, they wish to ban them for all.
Whenever someone does not believe in GOD, the wish to ban religion for all.
Whenever someone believes that laws cannot be enforced, they want to eliminate them.
If booze cannot be eliminated, then legalize it so that it can be taxed
If dope cannot be eliminated, then legalize it so that it can be taxed.

Instead of protecting the children, use them as a device to ban guns. Instead of securing the schools, go out and take everyone else's right to own firearms.
Since someone is under 21 committing a crime, then make the legal age of ownership 21 or above. Disregard the fact that we have had millions of young men, aged 16-21 serve our country honorably.
We do not believe that young people should be trusted, yet we send them off to war so that the rest of us don't have to go. We send them off to war and then tell them that when they get back, they cannot have a beer with an "adult." Send them to war and train them to use firearms, and then tell them that they cannot purchase a firearm in order to hunt when they come back. They can't be trusted in society because they are too immature to be trusted with our citizen's safety.
Like I said before and will continue to say it, to protect the children we must defend them from evil. To protect them from evil, we must fortify their schools when we are not there to protect them. You cannot predict and punish a crime that has not occurred. There is no "Minority Report" where we can arrest someone before they commit an act of violence. Good people have mental problems too. The type of weapon does not matter when it comes to violence, period.
What is so hard about installing a ten foot fence around a public school and placing an armed guard of police officer there to check those the enter? What is really so bad or awful about allowing school employees that have CCW to carry a pocket pistol that is never seen and never removed from their pocket? How much would it cost to install cameras in the schools?
Or, is it just more convenient for certain folks to blame all violence on guns so that they can ban them because they don't like them and do not want anyone else to own them?

May I borrow this for future reasonable discussions? Thanks in Advance.

[Taurus510]

very political shut it down!!!!!
Is someone forcing you to read this thread? If so, blink twice.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

"Thou shalt not kill"

So, you're a pacifist vegan who doesn't ever use pesticides or weedkillers on your lawn?

Or do you interpret that to mean "thou shalt not kill - except when it's something other than humans, and then go ahead and kill whatever and whenever you feel like it?"

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

The short answer is our Founding Fathers and their ancestors lived through terrible hardships and injustices done by the British Empire.

They were heavily taxed.

They were forced to house British soldiers. That means the government forced you to give up your bedroom, feed the soldier, clean his clothes, etc. and you had no choice. That government would send people to your home with no warrant and search your house just on their impulse.

They could be arrested on the street without a warrant and searched without probable cause.

They were not judged by a jury of their peers but a magistrate who may or may not allow you to speak on your behalf.

The list goes on. The 55 delegates who wrote our Constitution were far more educated than we are today. They studied every form of government mankind had ever produced and attempted to design a government that would not end in tyranny over the people. They valued individual Rights and sought to protect them. The result is our Constitutional Republic, an experiment that had never been done before.

As Benjamin Franklin said when asked "Doctor Franklin, what kind of government will we have?". His response, "A Republic if you can keep it.".

For those of us who study the Constitution and watch what is going on in our country there is great concern that Franklin's warning is coming to pass. I am hugely concerned the average American has little to no knowledge of our Independence, our Constitution, and our Bill of Rights. The things I read from people in forums seems indicative of that.

We are a nation of laws. The Supreme law of the land is the Constitution. It should not be taken lightly nor ignored as "it's old". We need to educate the masses once again so the wrongs of the past are not repeated. If we allow Mob Rule to overtake Minority Rights we will lose our Freedom and it will take another Revolution to get it back.

There was also that minor convenience regarding religion - some folks just kinda got a little tired of the Church of England (whichever denomination it chose from one year to another) being THE Church of England.

[PugMom]

very political shut it down!!!!!

before they do, let me express the idea that NONE of these shootings had to happen. previous poster mentions the media, & i' think there's a point there. the ONE most important thing is security @ schools, but that is sadly lacking. police or guards are looked upon poorly, so the schools have decided they are not needed. social media had NUMEROUS flags going up on damn-near ALL these shooters. if fb can remove a live crime video, why is it they cannot check a red-flag? why can't they alert police @ some point? if the police cant help, why not the fbi? we could go on & on until we're blue in the face, but it wont change if there is no reliable security. thank you.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Just an observation:
Seems like whenever someone does not like guns, they wish to ban them for all.
Whenever someone does not believe in GOD, the wish to ban religion for all.
Whenever someone believes that laws cannot be enforced, they want to eliminate them.
If booze cannot be eliminated, then legalize it so that it can be taxed
If dope cannot be eliminated, then legalize it so that it can be taxed.



Your observation is profoundly flawed.

I don't like guns. I'm also pro 2A. People should maintain the right to have firearms to form well-regulated militias.

I don't believe in what you consider to be "god." But if your deity makes you happy, go for it. Believe what you like.

I believe that if a law can't be enforced, it needs to a) change to make it enforceable or b) cease to be a law.

I believe if booze can't be eliminated, then make sure that people who abuse it are not causing harm to anyone else. Have laws regarding drinking and driving, for example.

I believe if cannabis can't be eliminated, then make sure that people who abuse it are not causing harm to anyone else. Keep smoking and vaping out of public buildings/restaurants or other enclosed public-accessible spaces, and impose the same "driving under the influence" laws that exist for any other substance that can affect someone's judgment, hand-eye coordination, reaction time.

I also believe that if abortions can't be stopped, then make sure they are legal and safe.

[MartinSE]

Your observation is profoundly flawed.

I don't like guns. I'm also pro 2A. People should maintain the right to have firearms to form well-regulated militias.

I don't believe in what you consider to be "god." But if your deity makes you happy, go for it. Believe what you like.

I believe that if a law can't be enforced, it needs to a) change to make it enforceable or b) cease to be a law.

I believe if booze can't be eliminated, then make sure that people who abuse it are not causing harm to anyone else. Have laws regarding drinking and driving, for example.

I believe if cannabis can't be eliminated, then make sure that people who abuse it are not causing harm to anyone else. Keep smoking and vaping out of public buildings/restaurants or other enclosed public-accessible spaces, and impose the same "driving under the influence" laws that exist for any other substance that can affect someone's judgment, hand-eye coordination, reaction time.

I also believe that if abortions can't be stopped, then make sure they are legal and safe.

Very pragmatic, and pretty much the same as I believe.

[Number 10 GI]

[QUOTE=
I don't believe in what you consider to be "god." But if your deity makes you happy, go for it. Believe what you like.
[/QUOTE]

Why do you find it necessary to denigrate a person because they believe in God?

A guy made a statement that I found to be quite revealing on why people denounce religion. I'm paraphrasing what he said as I don't have the exact quote at hand. Religion sets absolutes such as you will not kill, steal, have a fling with another person's spouse, and so on. Too many people want no restraints on what they do with their life.

[ThirdOfFive]

Just an observation:
Seems like whenever someone does not like guns, they wish to ban them for all.
Whenever someone does not believe in GOD, the wish to ban religion for all.
Whenever someone believes that laws cannot be enforced, they want to eliminate them.
If booze cannot be eliminated, then legalize it so that it can be taxed
If dope cannot be eliminated, then legalize it so that it can be taxed.

Instead of protecting the children, use them as a device to ban guns. Instead of securing the schools, go out and take everyone else's right to own firearms.
Since someone is under 21 committing a crime, then make the legal age of ownership 21 or above. Disregard the fact that we have had millions of young men, aged 16-21 serve our country honorably.
We do not believe that young people should be trusted, yet we send them off to war so that the rest of us don't have to go. We send them off to war and then tell them that when they get back, they cannot have a beer with an "adult." Send them to war and train them to use firearms, and then tell them that they cannot purchase a firearm in order to hunt when they come back. They can't be trusted in society because they are too immature to be trusted with our citizen's safety.
Like I said before and will continue to say it, to protect the children we must defend them from evil. To protect them from evil, we must fortify their schools when we are not there to protect them. You cannot predict and punish a crime that has not occurred. There is no "Minority Report" where we can arrest someone before they commit an act of violence. Good people have mental problems too. The type of weapon does not matter when it comes to violence, period.
What is so hard about installing a ten foot fence around a public school and placing an armed guard of police officer there to check those the enter? What is really so bad or awful about allowing school employees that have CCW to carry a pocket pistol that is never seen and never removed from their pocket? How much would it cost to install cameras in the schools?
Or, is it just more convenient for certain folks to blame all violence on guns so that they can ban them because they don't like them and do not want anyone else to own them?
Bingo!

Martyrs dying for a cause are venerated by those believing in that cause. It was unthinkable once...but is it just possible that some people see the children who die in school shootings in the same light?

We can protect the kids now. But for some reason we refuse to take the commonsense steps that would accomplish that, instead taking the all-or-nothing approach of trying to ban guns. And in the meantime, people die who shouldn't have had to.

Whose blood is on whose hands?

[Sarah_W]

As so many strive to change our Constitution or impede the Freedom and Rights of others I am constantly reminded how so many have forgotten the sacrifices that were made to provide us that Freedom. To be sure just as many were not even educated on the subject.

I'm reminded of a paragraph from a letter written by John Adams to his wife, Abigail Adams in 1777. Battles were ensuing and Adams was engaged with the Continental Congress.

He said, "Is it not intolerable, that the opening Spring, which I should enjoy with my Wife and Children upon my little Farm, should pass away, and laugh at me, for labouring, Day after Day, and Month after Month, in a Conclave, Where neither Taste, nor Fancy, nor Reason, nor Passion, nor Appetite can be gratified?
Posterity! You will never know, how much it cost the present Generation, to preserve your Freedom! I hope you will make a good Use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven, that I ever took half the Pains to preserve it."

Sadly, it will likely not be those walking the Earth today that will have to deal errant mistakes, but our posterity who will have to put our nation back on course. If it is possible at that time.

[MartinSE]

Why do you find it necessary to denigrate a person because they believe in God?

A guy made a statement that I found to be quite revealing on why people denounce religion. I'm paraphrasing what he said as I don't have the exact quote at hand. Religion sets absolutes such as you will not kill, steal, have a fling with another person's spouse, and so on. Too many people want no restraints on what they do with their life.

Why do some people feel threaten because someone disagrees with them? I saw nothing denigrating in the post you were replying too.

I do find it denigrating that you believe that moral and ethics rely on religion.

Thou shat not kill EXCEPT in some situations, like when you are on a religious crusade and attempt genecide in the name o& your religion. Or someone blows up a doctors office because their god told them too.

[JMintzer]

Well, somewhere there must be found a balance between your right tho keep and bear arms in order that you can well regulate the militia, and my right to be secure in my person, house, papers, and effects, and of course our mutual, if conflicted, expectations appurtenant to those Constitutional rights. At the present time, your second amendment rights trump my fourth amendment rights, so I’ll just have to duck and cover. Kevlar tee shirts, anyone?

Wut?

How does the 2A infringe on the 4A?

[JMintzer]

Your observation is profoundly flawed.

I don't like guns. I'm also pro 2A. People should maintain the right to have firearms to form well-regulated militias.

I don't believe in what you consider to be "god." But if your deity makes you happy, go for it. Believe what you like.

I believe that if a law can't be enforced, it needs to a) change to make it enforceable or b) cease to be a law.

I believe if booze can't be eliminated, then make sure that people who abuse it are not causing harm to anyone else. Have laws regarding drinking and driving, for example.

I believe if cannabis can't be eliminated, then make sure that people who abuse it are not causing harm to anyone else. Keep smoking and vaping out of public buildings/restaurants or other enclosed public-accessible spaces, and impose the same "driving under the influence" laws that exist for any other substance that can affect someone's judgment, hand-eye coordination, reaction time.

I also believe that if abortions can't be stopped, then make sure they are legal and safe.

You still do not understand the meaning of the 2A...

Your rational is profoundly flawed...

[Taltarzac725]

A Second Amendment Right to Conceal and Carry? | Brennan Center for Justice (https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/second-amendment-right-conceal-and-carry?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI7K3Q-Kzn-AIVhaezCh2O9QXFEAAYASAAEgIXqPD_BwE&ms=gad_right%20to%20bear%20arms_599098798451_86262 14133_135638969966)

Can a good guy with a concealed pistol in a Illinois July 4th parade stop a deranged killer on a roof with a long range rifle usually meant for battlefield use? Highland Park parade shooting - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highland_Park_parade_shooting)

Smith & Wesson M&P15 - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_%26_Wesson_M%26P15)

[JMintzer]

A Second Amendment Right to Conceal and Carry? | Brennan Center for Justice (https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/second-amendment-right-conceal-and-carry?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI7K3Q-Kzn-AIVhaezCh2O9QXFEAAYASAAEgIXqPD_BwE&ms=gad_right%20to%20bear%20arms_599098798451_86262 14133_135638969966)

Can a good guy with a concealed pistol in a Illinois July 4th parade stop a deranged killer on a roof with a long range rifle usually meant for battlefield use? Highland Park parade shooting - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highland_Park_parade_shooting)

Smith & Wesson M&P15 - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_%26_Wesson_M%26P15)

Impossible to know ahead of time...

[Sarah_W]

A Second Amendment Right to Conceal and Carry? | Brennan Center for Justice (https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/second-amendment-right-conceal-and-carry?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI7K3Q-Kzn-AIVhaezCh2O9QXFEAAYASAAEgIXqPD_BwE&ms=gad_right%20to%20bear%20arms_599098798451_86262 14133_135638969966)

Can a good guy with a concealed pistol in a Illinois July 4th parade stop a deranged killer on a roof with a long range rifle usually meant for battlefield use? Highland Park parade shooting - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highland_Park_parade_shooting)

Smith & Wesson M&P15 - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_%26_Wesson_M%26P15)

The answer to your question is yes, a good guy with a handgun can stop a killer with an AR. From what I can tell the buildings on that parade route were 3 and 4 story buildings, meaning less than 50 feet tall. Myself and anyone else with proper training could take that shot.

[Taltarzac725]

The answer to your question is yes, a good guy with a handgun can stop a killer with an AR. From what I can tell the buildings on that parade route were 3 and 4 story buildings, meaning less than 50 feet tall. Myself and anyone else with proper training could take that shot.

Once in a while a hero is in the right spot to stop one of these wanna-be mass murderers.

Amid deadly U.S. mass shootings in 2019, heroes emerged | Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-heroes/amid-deadly-u-s-mass-shootings-in-2019-heroes-emerged-idUSKBN1YG14Q)

[jimbomaybe]

Once in a while a hero is in the right spot to stop one of these wanna-be mass murderers.

Amid deadly U.S. mass shootings in 2019, heroes emerged | Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-heroes/amid-deadly-u-s-mass-shootings-in-2019-heroes-emerged-idUSKBN1YG14Q)
best case scenario you put one in the 10 ring, worst case somebody see you with a gun out and thinking you are the shooter they shoot you

[Number 10 GI]

Why do some people feel threaten because someone disagrees with them?

Why do you feel threatened when someone disagrees with you?


I saw nothing denigrating in the post you were replying too.


Really, wow!

[Woodbear]

If we want new laws I would add these two.

1. Upon conviction...... use of a gun during a crime brings a lifetime jail sentence with no ability to plea bargain.
2. Upon conviction..... use of a gun that causes a death results in immediate execution of the perp.

[jimbomaybe]

If we want new laws I would add these two.

1. Upon conviction...... use of a gun during a crime brings a lifetime jail sentence with no ability to plea bargain.
2. Upon conviction..... use of a gun that causes a death results in immediate execution of the perp.
Its almost out of living memory , but at one time there were stickup crews who would do their crimes with unloaded guns, the reason being if one of the crew screwed up and killed someone everyone involved would have a date with "sparkey". a time when "personnel responsibility" was more than a vague term, when if you seriously believed something like a zombie apocalypse was possible ( currently aver 10% of the population) missing air liner abducted by aliens' (7%) that you could change your gender, you could very likely find yourself living in an intuition with locks on the outside of the doors, a time when you could buy semi auto weapons through the mail without questions and mass shooting were just about unheard of.

[Speedie]

I guess it depends on peoples positions.

I believe it is pretty much impossible to even consider removing all guns from the US. DUH. 300 million guns can not be collected and disposed of in any reasonable amount of time, no matter how much I would like that. So, a more pragmatic approach to me, is to come to some kind of bi-partisan gun control legislation.

1. Universal background checks with access to mental health history for all purchases private or commercial. Anyone selling a gun with out receiving a background check is charged as accessory if the gun is used in a crime.

2. Cool down period - 48 to 72 hours? Maybe a week?

3. Domestic violence checks.

4. Some form of definition of what kind of guns can be owned. We obviously need to restrict access to cruise missiles, and BB guns are probably not going to make people happy. Some where in the middle we shovel be able to meet.

5. Conviction of a crime where a gun is used results in automatic lifetime ban from owning or possessing.

6. NATIONAL/universal gun control laws. If we have open carry, fine, EVERYONE has open carry.

There are a few ideas. I have more, but those would be a good start. I have mentioned them before also. Most people don't give e reasons, they just make snarky statements - drive by one liners.

#3. #4. #5. Are ALREADY law. Maybe the adminstration needs to focus on enforcing existing gun laws. Especially #5. How many arrest reports mention a felon in possession of a firearm??

[Speedie]

You are conflating all murders with mass shootings. Yes, violence will happen, but I feel safe saying zero out of the 300 mass shootings this year have been committed by Bludgeons.

The weapon of choice is AR-15. PERIOD. That is not debatable.

That said, I will agree with you that melting down every AR-15 in the country/world would not stop mass shootings, they would simply switch to another weapon.

I disagree with your comment that people don't want to look at morals and social media et al. I have read numerous reports on those issues. And for the most part they show that those "symptoms" that you list are represent in almost every country in the world. And the other countries do not have 300 mass shootings this year. So, the implication is they are NOT the cause.

I personally think the cause is a feeling of hopelessness by most poor and middle class Americans. I don't think I recall a rich person EVER committing a mass shooting in this country. They are typically by people with mental health issues (one could argue that to shoot 6 strangers for not apparent reason is a form of mental illness), or people that want to strike back at others that have bullied them, or men that feel they lives out of control and a significant number are coming from an abusive relationship where they abused their wives who finally left them and got restraining orders - again, a form of feeling like their life is out of control.

So, my question is why is it that so many feel so hopeless in the richest country in the world?

My answer is predatory capitalism, BIG corporations (not small ones) that control our lives, our government and our economy and leave broken people in their wake. That is what I think it is root cause.

Communist China has the solutions you are looking for. Too bad you can not go there without a permit. They have borders.

[MartinSE]

Communist China has the solutions you are looking for. Too bad you can not go there without a permit. They have borders.

Nice one liner snarky remark, which insults me without even trying.

Can you provide anything that in your opinion explains why you think it is true?

[MartinSE]

#3. #4. #5. Are ALREADY law. Maybe the adminstration needs to focus on enforcing existing gun laws. Especially #5. How many arrest reports mention a felon in possession of a firearm??

And since you feel compelled to make this post political, why is mass shootings have increased under every administration over the past 50 years? On that's right, it doesn't matter.

[Bay Kid]

I bet they don't look at what what legal antidepressants these killers are taking.

[Sarah_W]

The behaviors of mankind can be defined by cause and effect and measured by risk versus reward. We can determine why someone kills another.

Our society currently displays a tremendous reaction to mass shootings, especially when children are killed and injured. Yet, every weekend a dozen are killed in Chicago and it's not news worthy. I never see a thread lamenting the murders that occur in the inner cities.

Risk versus reward

Who knows what goes on in the mind of these mass killers? It seems the notoriety is the goal. Famous and infamous seems to be one and the same in their mind. They are famous for life. I believe if we take away the fame we take away their reward.

How to significantly reduce mass killings?

1. Stop putting their name on television, newspapers, social media, etc. We can cover the news and stop identifying the killer and giving them the fame they seek. End the publicity.

2. If the killer is found guilty in a court of law they receive the death sentence. Shockingly the average cost of executing a prisoner today is $1.25 million. Bring back the firing squad. Brutal killers should face a brutal ending.

[Wyseguy]

I believe that if a law can't be enforced, it needs to a) change to make it enforceable or b) cease to be a law.

I also believe that if abortions can't be stopped, then make sure they are legal and safe.[/QUOTE by Orange Blossom]

So what I hear you saying is that if a group of people, (may be a very small amount, ie antifa)
refuse to follow a law, then change the law. We have been unable to stop theft in our 200+ year history, so make it legal? Despite the war on drugs people still do drugs, well lets make it legal. Does not sound like a thought out plan.

[Wyseguy]

I have a problem, as a law abiding US citizen, being told what I need.
Do you really NEED a car that goes over 70mph? Let's allow only cars that go 70mph and no higher.
Do we really NEED to drink alcohol? Many deaths caused by DUI. Perhaps we should decide that you do not NEED to drink, BUT WAIT! People will still drink. Well if we can not enforce the You do not NEED to drink law, we should keep it legal then (another thought by a prior poster).
Looking at Environmental changes, does Bill gates really NEED a 20,000+ sqft home? Does he need many large homes? We should make it illegal. All anyone really NEEDS is 500 sq ft.
As an adult I will determine what I need.

[Wyseguy]

The behaviors of mankind can be defined by cause and effect and measured by risk versus reward. We can determine why someone kills another.

Our society currently displays a tremendous reaction to mass shootings, especially when children are killed and injured. Yet, every weekend a dozen are killed in Chicago and it's not news worthy. I never see a thread lamenting the murders that occur in the inner cities.

Risk versus reward

Who knows what goes on in the mind of these mass killers? It seems the notoriety is the goal. Famous and infamous seems to be one and the same in their mind. They are famous for life. I believe if we take away the fame we take away their reward.

How to significantly reduce mass killings?

1. Stop putting their name on television, newspapers, social media, etc. We can cover the news and stop identifying the killer and giving them the fame they seek. End the publicity.

2. If the killer is found guilty in a court of law they receive the death sentence. Shockingly the average cost of executing a prisoner today is $1.25 million. Bring back the firing squad. Brutal killers should face a brutal ending.

The reason you do not hear about the many killings every weekend in our inner cities, is because it does not fit the narrative.

[MartinSE]

Our society currently displays a tremendous reaction to mass shootings, especially when children are killed and injured. Yet, every weekend a dozen are killed in Chicago and it's not news worthy. I never see a thread lamenting the murders that occur in the inner cities.



So, you see no difference between murdering innocent children and drive-by shootings, gang warfare and drug selling gone wrong?

[Sarah_W]

So, you see no difference between murdering innocent children and drive-by shootings, gang warfare and drug selling gone wrong?

I see the seriousness of all of the killings. Do you? The media decries we have a gun violence problem and the solution is to deprive the Rights of law abiding citizens while going soft on criminals. Criminals don't get a conceal carry permit, they do it illegally. The vast majority don't buy their guns at stores, they buy them on the street.

If you want to be honest in defining a problem we have to recognize that 54% of gun deaths are by suicide. Also, not done with a AR style rifle, by the way.

Let's look at 2020

Gun Deaths, 45,222
Suicide 24,420
Homocide 19,384 (16,000 murders, 3,000 gang related) includes 513 mass shooting victims
Accidental 1,418

Mass Shooting (4 or more people) 513

The false narrative that we have an AR problem should tell everyone it is an agenda driven issue, not a problem solving issue. The AR is one type of rifle. Each year less than 400 people are killed by rifles of all kinds.

Another truth. In 2020, cell phones caused 1.6 million automobile crashes, injuring 424,000 people and killing 3,100. Shouldn't we be discussing some common sense cell phone control? Nobody needs a smart phone, after all.

[Topspinmo]

best case scenario you put one in the 10 ring, worst case somebody see you with a gun out and thinking you are the shooter they shoot you


Hard for shooter to react when getting shot at when he can’t focus with that many people movement. Beside it will disrupt his aim where he can’t shoot till it safe to stick his head up. I’m betting in most cases the coward will drop his gun rifle and run.

[Topspinmo]

No but if the majority of people who killed a few dozen people were driving exclusively red Chevy Trailblazers, the insurance companies would probably raise their rates on red Chevy Trailblazers, and the police would be more watchful for people driving red Chevy Trailblazers, and the manufacturer would probably be getting pressure from various organizations (including, possibly, the government) to make it more difficult to kill a few dozen people by a single driver.

Instead - some people will suggest we just give more red Chevy Trailblazers to more people, because that'll solve the problem.

Again - that's just SO logical.

/sarcasm


I bet most of the losers has all their money invested in guns and ammo and probably stole mommy/daddy car or walked. Insurance will use any excuse to raise policy rates just like price or gas. :shocked: so you’re sarcasm doesn’t hole water.

[Topspinmo]

The reason this is now being pushed is the claim that an 18 yo's brain isn't fully developed. They use the same reasoning to raise the drinking age to 21... Logical, right?

So why do we let them vote at 18? (and there are some who want to lower the voting age to 16!). I can't think of a reason why they would want that, can you? [/sarcasm]


Well before 1950 it was, but now’s days needs to at least 30.

Some want Vote at 16, reason? I can: it starts with in and ends with ed.

[Number 10 GI]

So, you see no difference between murdering innocent children and drive-by shootings, gang warfare and drug selling gone wrong?

There are innocent children killed all the time in drive-by shootings by gangs, some in their home's bedroom! So no, there is no difference. No, I take that back, the difference is 1 or 2 inner city children killed in a drive-by doesn't have the sensationalist, "if it bleeds, it leads" requirement of the media. It's purely a profit driven business decision.

Just violent thugs doing what they do best, committing violent acts with no regard or remorse for who they may injure or kill. Thinking back about the number of news reports I've read or heard about where an innocent child was killed in a drive-by shooting, equals or exceeds the number killed in school shootings. No, I'm not trying to trivialize the deaths of children, it hurts my heart whenever I hear of such things. We have a violence problem in this country that no one is making any effort to address.

[Topspinmo]

That is 100% false. You absolutely can own a fully automatic weapon and it isn’t all that difficult.

The requirements for owning a machine gun, or an automatic weapon, in the United States:

Must not be classified as a “prohibited person.”
Be at least 21 years of age to purchase a machine gun from the current owner.
Be a legal resident of the United States.
Be legally eligible to purchase a firearm.
Pass a BATFE background check with a typical process time of 8 to 10 months.
Pay a one-time $200 transfer tax. (You’ll need a stamp for each machine gun.)

And now you're good to go.


Not really automatic weapons are not readily available. 99% are in collectors hands. If want one it will probably have to be custom made or modifications to existing semiautomatic’s, then, there the legal issue of the modified firearm. So, IMO not just not that easy.

[Topspinmo]

Actually not true. Let’s take that statement to its extreme, to make my point. If you have two guys armed in a gymnasium full of children, and one has an AR-15, and the other has a 6-shooter, who is going to kill more humans in 60 seconds? Who is going to have to pause often to reload, to give police the opportunity to shoot him? Who’s victims will likely live (even though they were shot) because the holes are addressable by doctors, whereas they other guys bullets explode inside the body creating massive trauma to many organs, including ripping off limbs and decapitating victims?

The CAPABILITY of the gun IS THE ISSUE!!!!

High powered ammunition usually goes straight through unless hits something solid like bone which causes it to shred off course or The projectile been modified to spread out. We’re lower powered ammo tends to bounce around inside body when it hits hard mass.

[jimbomaybe]

Hard for shooter to react when getting shot at when he can focus with that many people movement. Beside it will disrupt his aim where he can’t shoot till it safe to stick his head up. I’m betting in most cases the coward will drop his gun rifle and run. I think you are right but being in civilian dress you could still be confused with the shooter and having another person with a CC take you out , take your chances and do the right thing

[jimbomaybe]

High powered ammunition usually goes straight through unless hits something solid like bone which causes it to shred off course or The projectile been modified to spread out. We’re lower powered ammo tends to bounce around inside body when it hits hard mass.
Depends on the velocity and construction of the bullet, soft point/hollow point are designed to expand in soft flesh, a rifle generally has a much higher velocity that has a very high rotational rate ,high centrifugal force, hollow point/soft point in soft tissue, that is mostly water that doesn't compress causes the mushrooming effect, that effectively increases the caliber, transferring more energy to the target, the shock wave produced, (miscalled exploding ) propagates rupturing cell structure, I have seen people shot in the head with .22 where the bullet skinned around the persons head, heard of the same thing happening with a solid lead .38 sp

[MartinSE]

I see the seriousness of all of the killings. Do you? The media decries we have a gun violence problem and the solution is to deprive the Rights of law abiding citizens while going soft on criminals. Criminals don't get a conceal carry permit, they do it illegally. The vast majority don't buy their guns at stores, they buy them on the street.
.

Who is trying to deny the rights of law biding citizens?

Hmm, let's see, the shooter at the 4th got his weapons legally, the shooter at Ovalde got his weapons legally. Shall we go through the entire list?

Oh, wait you are just deflecting from mass shootings the topic of this thread to gun violence in general, I understand. It is easier to conflate the two.

[Taurus510]

Not really automatic weapons are not readily available. 99% are in collectors hands. If want one it will probably have to be custom made or modifications to existing semiautomatic’s, then, there the legal issue of the modified firearm. So, IMO not just that easy.
Automatic weapons are illegal unless you hold a federal license. To get that license, you will have to go through an extensive, and I do mean extensive, background check. If you pass that, then your local sheriff will be visiting you for multiple interviews, then if you satisfy him, and if he is willing to personally vouch for your trustworthiness, you will then be required to spend thousands of dollars for the license. At that point you may purchase an automatic weapon. If you modify an existing semi-automatic to become a fully automatic weapon without that license, and you’re discovered, the very least worry you will have is a legal issue of a modified firearm. It will be comparable to causing a fatal accident while DUI and receiving a failure to signal ticket along with everything else.

[JMintzer]

And since you feel compelled to make this post political, why is mass shootings have increased under every administration over the past 50 years? On that's right, it doesn't matter.

Breakdown of the family...

Lack of positive male role models in said families...

Mass distribution of Psychotropic drugs to young males...

Refusal to discipline children in schools (and at home)...

Refusal to report instances of violent/anti-social behavior in schools...

Refusal of progressive DAs to prosecute gun crimes...

Any of those matter?

[MartinSE]

There are innocent children killed all the time in drive-by shootings by gangs, some in their home's bedroom! So no, there is no difference. No, I take that back, the difference is 1 or 2 inner city children killed in a drive-by doesn't have the sensationalist, "if it bleeds, it leads" requirement of the media. It's purely a profit driven business decision.

Just violent thugs doing what they do best, committing violent acts with no regard or remorse for who they may injure or kill. Thinking back about the number of news reports I've read or heard about where an innocent child was killed in a drive-by shooting, equals or exceeds the number killed in school shootings. No, I'm not trying to trivialize the deaths of children, it hurts my heart whenever I hear of such things. We have a violence problem in this country that no one is making any effort to address.

Seriously, children sitting in school class room is no different than children playing on the street. And how many "mass shootings" have involved children playing on the string solely?

Okay, I give up, since we can not solve EVERYTHING, let's just not solve anything and sit here arguing semantics. I am done with this thread.

[JMintzer]

So, you see no difference between murdering innocent children and drive-by shootings, gang warfare and drug selling gone wrong?

How many innocent children are killed in the "drive-by shootings, gang warfare and drug-sales gone wrong"?

[JMintzer]

Not really automatic weapons are not readily available. 99% are in collectors hands. If want one it will probably have to be custom made or modifications to existing semiautomatic’s, then, there the legal issue of the modified firearm. So, IMO not just that easy.

Not to mention the wheelbarrow full of $$$ you'll need...

[JMintzer]

High powered ammunition usually goes straight through unless hits something solid like bone which causes it to shred off course or The projectile been modified to spread out. We’re lower powered ammo tends to bounce around inside body when it hits hard mass.

Which caused MORE damage...

That is why a .22 was the gun of choice for "Mafia Hits" back in the day...

One to the melon just rattles around in there...

[JMintzer]

I think you are right but being in civilian dress you could still be confused with the shooter and having another person with a CC take you out , take your chances and do the right thing

Which is why you try to ID yourself as a "good guy"...

[JMintzer]

Who is trying to deny the rights of law biding citizens?

You're kidding, right?

Please tell me you're kidding...

[JMintzer]

If you modify an existing semi-automatic to become a fully automatic weapon without that license, and you’re discovered, the very least worry you will have is a legal issue of a modified firearm.

That is a guaranteed trip to "Club Fed"...

[Sarah_W]

I am done with this thread.

I doubt that, Martin. As soon as facts are introduced it seems to be so upsetting for you that you can't stay on topic and discuss the solutions that have been presented so far. Is this a problem solving exercise or just a complaint session? If it's the later I'll stop wasting my time trying to educate. Selective outrage it seems.

Banning the most popular rifle in America is denying Rights to law abiding citizens.

[jimbomaybe]

Which is why you try to ID yourself as a "good guy"...

YELLING,,.., SCREAMING,, Pandemonium, GUN FIRE,, Oh Hey I, am the good guy

[Topspinmo]

Who is trying to deny the rights of law biding citizens?

Hmm, let's see, the shooter at the 4th got his weapons legally, the shooter at Ovalde got his weapons legally. Shall we go through the entire list?

Oh, wait you are just deflecting from mass shootings the topic of this thread to gun violence in general, I understand. It is easier to conflate the two.

Yes, and the system failed, has red flags. So, what makes you think additional laws will make difference. It hasn’t since Reagan got shot?

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

I doubt that, Martin. As soon as facts are introduced it seems to be so upsetting for you that you can't stay on topic and discuss the solutions that have been presented so far. Is this a problem solving exercise or just a complaint session? If it's the later I'll stop wasting my time trying to educate. Selective outrage it seems.

Banning the most popular rifle in America is denying Rights to law abiding citizens.

No, it's not. There is nothing in any law of any state or in the Constitution guaranteeing you the right to THAT specific firearm.

Selective lawyering, it seems.

[Bill14564]

No, it's not. There is nothing in any law of any state or in the Constitution guaranteeing you the right to THAT specific firearm.

Selective lawyering, it seems.

I"m pretty sure you have it backwards. The Constitution does not enumerate *which* arms you can bear, just as it doesn't enumerate *which* religions you have freedom of or *which* speech is protected. To ban any speech or any religion or any arms requires justification since that *would* be chipping away at a guaranteed right.

[JMintzer]

YELLING,,.., SCREAMING,, Pandemonium, GUN FIRE,, Oh Hey I, am the good guy

Tell me you've never taken a defensive shooting course without telling me you've never taken a defensive shooting course...

[JMintzer]

No, it's not. There is nothing in any law of any state or in the Constitution guaranteeing you the right to THAT specific firearm.

Selective lawyering, it seems.

Nothing that doesn't guarantee it, either... Nor anything that denies that right...

[Topspinmo]

No, it's not. There is nothing in any law of any state or in the Constitution guaranteeing you the right to THAT specific firearm.

Selective lawyering, it seems.

Did you come from foreign country? In free county you can have and do what you want, if you’re willing to pay the price. That’s why everybody in world want to come here and for the hand outs of course.

[Sarah_W]

No, it's not. There is nothing in any law of any state or in the Constitution guaranteeing you the right to THAT specific firearm.

Selective lawyering, it seems.

First let's understand that the Constitution is the People's document. The Constitution describes the limitations of government and delineates the powers ascribed to the Executive branch, the Legislative branch and the Judicial branch. In other words, our Constitution is the People's document to limit the power of government, not the governments document to limit the power of the People. Limited government.

Our Constitution, through the Bill of Rights, acknowledges certain Rights, but is not to be construed that those are the only Rights we have.

In this instance we are talking about our 2nd Amendment:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The operative clause of this amendment is in bold. Let's break it down so that it is very clear. Some people seem to not understand who this right belongs to. It is straight forward in stating it is a Right of the People. It is not a Right of the Militia. What is the Right? It is the Right to keep and to bear Arms. To "keep" means to have possession of and to "bear" is to carry. Arms are weapons and ammunition, armaments.

Is that Right limited? Does it state that we can only have certain arms? No, it doesn't. At the same time, it does not say it is unlimited. At the time of the writing of the Constitution, private individuals could own any armament that they could afford. Armaments were not restricted.

Now we look at "shall not be infringed". We can see the definition in 1787 of that word is clear; to violate, to hinder, to destroy.

We know from McDonald, Heller and Bruen that the SCOTUS looks at Text, History and Tradition and applies strict scrutiny. The AR style rifle has been available to citizens since 1957 and there are millions of them in possession by civilians. Therefore, the text of the 2nd Amendment does not put limitations on any armaments. History demonstrates that the AR has been available to The People for 65 years. Tradition demonstrates that not only were they available in the Sears & Roebuck catalog for delivery to your home by the US Mail up to 1968, but Americans have purchase millions of this firearm since its availability.

So, there is nothing in the Constitution barring me from owning that rifle. I believe any state law that would prohibit me from owning that rifle would be deemed unconstitutional.

[dhdallas]

"For too long, you have swallowed manufactured statistics and fabricated technical support from anti-gun organizations that wouldn't know a semi-auto from a sharp stick. And it shows. You fall for it every time."

— National Press Club speech (1997) Charlton Heston

[ThirdOfFive]

"For too long, you have swallowed manufactured statistics and fabricated technical support from anti-gun organizations that wouldn't know a semi-auto from a sharp stick. And it shows. You fall for it every time."

— National Press Club speech (1997) Charlton Heston
The Heston quote brings out a very good point. The information on this topic is all too often hidden by the deluge of MISinformation about guns and the right to bear them. Social media (the ultimate oxymoron) guarantees that no matter how bizarre one's beliefs, he or she not only find like-minded people but also manufactured and misinterpreted information to support that belief. A prime example is one that has been mentioned here: 300 or more "mass shootings" so far this year--not a statistic, but the result of completely changing the definition of the term "mass shooting" by including gang and criminal-on-criminal gun violence. Not only that, but those same people have been so conditioned by media to associate "mass shooting" with "AR-15" that they immediately assume AR-15's have been involved in most or all of those manufactured "mass shootings" when nothing could be further from the truth.

It is the difference between looking for information vs. hunting for validation. Far too many of us, when we hear "information" that supports this-or-that point of view we have, believe it without question.

[Taltarzac725]

That 300 count comes from statistics Mass Shootings in 2022 | Gun Violence Archive (https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting).

Statistics are manipulated often by people but are hard to argue with in some way.

From the link--

Mass Shooting Methodology and Reasoning
Mass Shootings are, for the most part an American phenomenon. While they are generally grouped together as one type of incident they are several with the foundation definition being that they have a minimum of four victims shot, either injured or killed, not including any shooter who may also have been killed or injured in the incident.

The Heston quote brings out a very good point. The information on this topic is all too often hidden by the deluge of MISinformation about guns and the right to bear them. Social media (the ultimate oxymoron) guarantees that no matter how bizarre one's beliefs, he or she not only find like-minded people but also manufactured and misinterpreted information to support that belief. A prime example is one that has been mentioned here: 300 or more "mass shootings" so far this year--not a statistic, but the result of completely changing the definition of the term "mass shooting" by including gang and criminal-on-criminal gun violence. Not only that, but those same people have been so conditioned by media to associate "mass shooting" with "AR-15" that they immediately assume AR-15's have been involved in most or all of those manufactured "mass shootings" when nothing could be further from the truth.

It is the difference between looking for information vs. hunting for validation. Far too many of us, when we hear "information" that supports this-or-that point of view we have, believe it without question.

[Number 10 GI]

No, it's not. There is nothing in any law of any state or in the Constitution guaranteeing you the right to THAT specific firearm.

Selective lawyering, it seems.

Show me anywhere in the Constitution that says what firearms are allowed.

[Taltarzac725]

How did Benjamin Franklin feel about guns? - Quora (https://www.quora.com/How-did-Benjamin-Franklin-feel-about-guns)

Worth a look. The Founding Fathers did face a lot of threats such as the Redcoats, Native Americans, wildlife, etc.

We do live in a very different environment though and I wonder what Ben Franklin would think of say a gunfight with assault type weapons occurring in the streets of Philadelphia. It would seem very much against the pursuit of happiness.

[ThirdOfFive]

How did Benjamin Franklin feel about guns? - Quora (https://www.quora.com/How-did-Benjamin-Franklin-feel-about-guns)

Worth a look. The Founding Fathers did face a lot of threats such as the Redcoats, Native Americans, wildlife, etc.

We do live in a very different environment though and I wonder what Ben Franklin would think of say a gunfight with assault type weapons occurring in the streets of Philadelphia. It would seem very much against the pursuit of happiness.
The Constitution is changeable. It can be amended. If there are indeed as many people opposed to the Second Amendment as it is written and interpreted, it should be no problem at all mustering up the necessary votes to amend it.

[Sarah_W]

How did Benjamin Franklin feel about guns? - Quora (https://www.quora.com/How-did-Benjamin-Franklin-feel-about-guns)

Worth a look. The Founding Fathers did face a lot of threats such as the Redcoats, Native Americans, wildlife, etc.

We do live in a very different environment though and I wonder what Ben Franklin would think of say a gunfight with assault type weapons occurring in the streets of Philadelphia. It would seem very much against the pursuit of happiness.

I would imagine Franklin would have looked to the enforcement of our law in dealing with a gunfight with any weapons on our streets.

[Number 10 GI]

How did Benjamin Franklin feel about guns? - Quora (https://www.quora.com/How-did-Benjamin-Franklin-feel-about-guns)

Worth a look. The Founding Fathers did face a lot of threats such as the Redcoats, Native Americans, wildlife, etc.

We do live in a very different environment though and I wonder what Ben Franklin would think of say a gunfight with assault type weapons occurring in the streets of Philadelphia. It would seem very much against the pursuit of happiness.

I would be quite interested if this has actually happened in any city in the U.S. Do you have an article you can share?

[jimbomaybe]

Show me anywhere in the Constitution that says what firearms are allowed.
Basic legal premise if it is not specify prohibited it is allowed

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Show me anywhere in the Constitution that says what firearms are allowed.

I don't have to. I'm not the one making the claim that you have the right to a specific type of weapon.

If you want to claim that you have a right to THAT weapon, then show me where it says you do. The Constitution does not state that you have the right to bear ANY firearms. It only states that you have the right to bear arms. The law allows for further clarification, should the legislature choose to do so. That's why 2A is an amendment. The Constitution consists of a pre-amble, seven actual articles, and 27 amendments. The amendments are add-ons. They were not part of the original Constitution and can be removed, or further amended, or appended, or edited.

[Reiver]

What an obtuse statement.. The Constitution does not ban any weapons, and therefor allows any weapon to be owned.

[Bill14564]

I don't have to. I'm not the one making the claim that you have the right to a specific type of weapon.

If you want to claim that you have a right to THAT weapon, then show me where it says you do. The Constitution does not state that you have the right to bear ANY firearms. It only states that you have the right to bear arms. The law allows for further clarification, should the legislature choose to do so. That's why 2A is an amendment. The Constitution consists of a pre-amble, seven actual articles, and 27 amendments. The amendments are add-ons. They were not part of the original Constitution and can be removed, or further amended, or appended, or edited.

You still have it backwards. See reply #219.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

What an obtuse statement.. The Constitution does not ban any weapons, and therefor allows any weapon to be owned.

And yet, there are states that prohibit the possession of fully-automatic weapons. There are states that only allow some people to possess certain weapons, but prohibit other people from possessing them.

This is left up to the states to decide. The Constitution does not guarantee that you have the right to possess any weapon you want to possess. It only gives you the right to bear arms. If the states want to dictate WHICH arms you are allowed to bear, they retain that right to dictate. And in fact, the Federal Government also has the right to restrict use of specific arms.

As long as you're allowed to bear SOME arms - they are not violating that amendment.

Further, 2A is not infallible. It can be further amended, appended, edited, or repealed.

[Sarah_W]

And yet, there are states that prohibit the possession of fully-automatic weapons. There are states that only allow some people to possess certain weapons, but prohibit other people from possessing them.

This is left up to the states to decide. The Constitution does not guarantee that you have the right to possess any weapon you want to possess. It only gives you the right to bear arms. If the states want to dictate WHICH arms you are allowed to bear, they retain that right to dictate. And in fact, the Federal Government also has the right to restrict use of specific arms.

As long as you're allowed to bear SOME arms - they are not violating that amendment.

Further, 2A is not infallible. It can be further amended, appended, edited, or repealed.

Reminder, the Constitution puts limits on our government. It does not put limits on the citizens. That is an import distinction to understand. The States do not have carte blanche to right laws restricting citizen behavior. All State and local laws MUST be Constitutional as they are inferior to the Constitution which is the supreme law of our land. In other words, the States can't violate our Rights as acknowledged by the Constitution and the Amendments.

Reminder, to remove an amendment requires an amendment. The same holds for modifying an amendment. To do that requires 3/4 of the state legislatures to pass that amendment. That would require 37 of 50 states to pass such an amendment.

As a practical observation. Never has an amendment that acknowledges a Right been removed. I don't think any of us will live long enough to see State legislatures actually succeed in taking away a Right. This current Administration can talk big and threatening but I can assure you that is not a line they will ever cross.

[ThirdOfFive]

I don't have to. I'm not the one making the claim that you have the right to a specific type of weapon.

If you want to claim that you have a right to THAT weapon, then show me where it says you do. The Constitution does not state that you have the right to bear ANY firearms. It only states that you have the right to bear arms. The law allows for further clarification, should the legislature choose to do so. That's why 2A is an amendment. The Constitution consists of a pre-amble, seven actual articles, and 27 amendments. The amendments are add-ons. They were not part of the original Constitution and can be removed, or further amended, or appended, or edited.
True, but Amendments, once passed and ratified by 3/4 of the states are then a part of the Constitution and can only be amended, edited or dropped by implementing the same process that was used in their adoption: proposed in Congress where it must pass by 2/3 vote in each house, then sent to the states for ratification. If 3/4 of the states ratify it, it becomes a part of the Constitution.

The only other way is by Constitutional Convention, which is basically "back to the drawing board" on all or parts of the Constitution, but that can only come about if 2/3 of the states call for it by majority vote of the people in each state, and then any changes proposed at the convention must be passed by a 3/4 vote of the states (38 out of 50) before the changes become part of the Constitution. There has never been a Constitutional Convention since the first one, though there have been hundreds of calls for one.

See "Office of the Federal Register" website for a detailed explanation.

[Get real]

And yet, there are states that prohibit the possession of fully-automatic weapons. There are states that only allow some people to possess certain weapons, but prohibit other people from possessing them.



Exactly. The states with the highest illegal gun crime rate. Thanks for pointing that out.

[Byte1]

May I borrow this for future reasonable discussions? Thanks in Advance.

Sorry, it was just me throwing out my thoughts in frustration when the subject comes up. If you are serious, feel free. Not that it is the most coherent writing. It's just my opinion.

[Byte1]

Your observation is profoundly flawed.

I don't like guns. I'm also pro 2A. People should maintain the right to have firearms to form well-regulated militias.

I don't believe in what you consider to be "god." But if your deity makes you happy, go for it. Believe what you like.

I believe that if a law can't be enforced, it needs to a) change to make it enforceable or b) cease to be a law.

I believe if booze can't be eliminated, then make sure that people who abuse it are not causing harm to anyone else. Have laws regarding drinking and driving, for example.

I believe if cannabis can't be eliminated, then make sure that people who abuse it are not causing harm to anyone else. Keep smoking and vaping out of public buildings/restaurants or other enclosed public-accessible spaces, and impose the same "driving under the influence" laws that exist for any other substance that can affect someone's judgment, hand-eye coordination, reaction time.

I also believe that if abortions can't be stopped, then make sure they are legal and safe.

Like I stipulated in my post; it is MY OPINION. Just like your post is not fact, just your opinion. Like I said, if you can't control it, many folks believe it should be legalized and taxed. It's simply a matter of rationalization by some that want to be right, can't so they believe that their compromise is winning a debate. Of course, this is just my opinion, based on my observation.

[Byte1]

And since you feel compelled to make this post political, why is mass shootings have increased under every administration over the past 50 years? On that's right, it doesn't matter.

Perhaps because our population has increased in size, therefore crime has also increased? Just a suggestion, and I am sure it will result in an argument rather than as part of the discussion. Also of consideration is that enforcement and penalties for committing a crime are lax.

[Byte1]

Which caused MORE damage...

That is why a .22 was the gun of choice for "Mafia Hits" back in the day...

One to the melon just rattles around in there...

Another reason the "hit man" preferred the .22 was because it was easily silenced. In the "olden" days a silenced .22 revolver was the rage of all genuine hit men. :pepper2:

[Wyseguy]

"No, it's not. There is nothing in any law of any state or in the Constitution guaranteeing you the right to THAT specific firearm."

The above sounds like something one of the people on the View would say.

[Wyseguy]

I don't have to. I'm not the one making the claim that you have the right to a specific type of weapon.

If you want to claim that you have a right to THAT weapon, then show me where it says you do. The Constitution does not state that you have the right to bear ANY firearms. It only states that you have the right to bear arms. The law allows for further clarification, should the legislature choose to do so. That's why 2A is an amendment. The Constitution consists of a pre-amble, seven actual articles, and 27 amendments. The amendments are add-ons. They were not part of the original Constitution and can be removed, or further amended, or appended, or edited.

The law states what IS NOT permitted, not what is. Similar to Freedom of Speech. All speech is permitted with very few, very specific exceptions.

[JMintzer]

Another reason the "hit man" preferred the .22 was because it was easily silenced. In the "olden" days a silenced .22 revolver was the rage of all genuine hit men. :pepper2:

How do you "silence" a revolver???

The gas escapes out the cylinder, thus creating the "bang"...

Silencers (actually called suppressors), really only work on semi-auto weapons, or bolt action rifles...

[ThirdOfFive]

How do you "silence" a revolver???

The gas escapes out the cylinder, thus creating the "bang"...

Silencers (actually called suppressors), really only work on semi-auto weapons, or bolt action rifles...
For most revolvers, that is true. However there are some revolvers (such as the Nagant "Gas Seal" revolver) that can be suppressed. In fact that particular revolver (suppressed) was the favorite weapon of the KGB in carrying out their assassinations.

...OR, you could take the Vito Corleone route (Godfather II), just wrap the entire revolver on a towel. 'Course, after your victim is offed, you have the problem of a flaming towel...

[Wyseguy]

How do you "silence" a revolver???

The gas escapes out the cylinder, thus creating the "bang"...

Silencers (actually called suppressors), really only work on semi-auto weapons, or bolt action rifles...

I had the same question; thinking that perhaps the poster was saying the silence of a 22 vs 380cal or 9mm. A pillow over a 22 muffles the sound as well?

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

The law states what IS NOT permitted, not what is. Similar to Freedom of Speech. All speech is permitted with very few, very specific exceptions.

The few exceptions to freedom of speech are not listed in the Constitution or the Amendments. And yet - there they are. Exceptions.

The same can be made true for exceptions to "right to bear arms."

[Babubhat]

A thread that need to become extinct. Only the SC decides