[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by jimbomaybe

You have brought up "obscene" profits of the gun manufactures (more than once?) they sell guns because people want to own them, not as much for fear of a mass shooter but the run of the mill criminal that has little or no fear of punishment

I agree that home break-in is probably the main reason US people purchase guns (years ago it was for the sport of hunting)., I am saying that the profit margin on an AR-15-style weapon is MUCH greater than a hunting rifle. The gun manufacturers point their advertisement toward influencing gun buyers to DESIRE the more expensive, high-profit margin military-style weapons with expensive accessories like 30-round magazines. They have done this by creating the illusion that each gun owner's home will be attacked by a 20 man platoon of crazed, drug-infected, zombie home-burglar death squads - this provides the justification for the purchase of an expensive, "tricked-out" semi-automatic man-killing machines of death - plus they look "COOL" to the Butthead and Beavis reptilian mindset.

When in reality.......a short-barreled shotgun is the best home defense weapon.........and relatively inexpensive.

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

There have been some terrible Supreme Court decisions and some very poor choices for members on it.

The 2nd Amendment is also very hard to interpret just what they wanted to do. Probably deliberately written that way.

If one believes the hype put forth by the 2nd Amendment critics, that the vast majority of Americans favor more restrictive gun laws than are presently in force--then the solution is obvious. The Founding Fathers made sure that there is a method by which the Constitution can be changed. The process is no secret. In fact over the history of the document, 27 amendments have been ratified and thus became part of the Constitution.

Why don't the folks who are critical of the 2nd Amendment implement implement that process? Seems like the obvious answer considering what their criticisms are.

[Byte1]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

I agree that home break-in is probably the main reason US people purchase guns (years ago it was for the sport of hunting)., I am saying that the profit margin on an AR-15-style weapon is MUCH greater than a hunting rifle. The gun manufacturers point their advertisement toward influencing gun buyers to DESIRE the more expensive, high-profit margin military-style weapons with expensive accessories like 30-round magazines. They have done this by creating the illusion that each gun owner's home will be attacked by a 20 man platoon of crazed, drug-infected, zombie home-burglar death squads - this provides the justification for the purchase of an expensive, "tricked-out" semi-automatic man-killing machines of death - plus they look "COOL" to the Butthead and Beavis reptilian mindset.

When in reality.......a short-barreled shotgun is the best home defense weapon.........and relatively inexpensive.

"Reality?" Have you ever fired a shotgun inside a structure, such as a home? Yes, a shotgun is very effective. Yes, it is a very good self defense weapon. However, I hope you are prepared to refurbish your home afterward. I have personally seen how much damage a shotgun does in a home and how messy a body torn apart by a shotgun can be. Thank goodness I did not have to clean up the mess. And you are wrong regarding a shotgun NOT penetrating an interior wall. And I hope you do not have someone else in the house that you are firing that shotgun in when you fire it. Hopefully, you won't hit someone else because the pattern spreads as it moves away from the muzzle, as I am sure you KNOW since you seem to know so much about firearms. Perhaps, you would prefer to use rubber bullets on the intruder or a flare gun? Personally, if I was better with my throwing arm, maybe I would chuck a few tomatoes to scare the bad guy away

[Blueblaze]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

It WOULD be nice if we could outlaw lunatics. Just outlawing lunatic drivers on the local roads would be a GIANT step for humanity. keeping large numbers of lunatics in an asylum would be a great idea. Some could be helped. But, we would ALL have to pay increased taxes for that, probably property taxes, and people would be very reluctant to do that.
.......My opinion is to remove easy access for the LUNATICS to acquire their favorite weapon of choice - the semi-automatic rifle. Yes, it has been pointed out that in total there are more mass murders with pistols than semi-auto
rifles. A lot of the mass shootings with pistols are spur-of-the-moment decisions and the pistol is available and easier to hide than a rifle. When a LUNATIC takes the time to plan out his (most are men) mass attack they pick a soft target crowd and they use their "weapon of choice" - the AR-15- style rifle.
.........It is easier to stop the US sales of AR-15-style weapons than trying to outlaw LUNATICS. Also, making laws to restrict magazine size to 5 rounds would be easier. Making the lunatic be at least 21 years old to buy a semi-auto rifle would also be relatively easy and effective.
........The problem is that mass murder events are increasing and will continue to increase. At some level of DEATHS, US citizens will be convinced to go against the will and obscene profits of the gun manufacturers.

We had no problem outlawing lunatics for 200 years before they emptied the asylums -- and then we started having monthly mass-murder events. It's called cause-and-effect. In fact, we had semi-automatic rifles with large magazine for 100 of those years, without mass-murder events.

It has been illegal for lunatics to have access to weapons for as long as there have been lunatics and weapons. Turns out, much like thugs and bank robbers, lunatics tend to ignore the law when they go off their nut.

The only people your laws impact are the people who obey the law. They aren't the ones shooting up grade schools, so why do you want to confiscate their constitutional rights?

Its simple math. There are about 400 million semi-automatic weapons in circulation, and only about 10,000 lunatics. Much easier to lock up the lunatics than to confiscate 400 million guns from law-abiding citizens, who you will soon discover will simply ignore your unconstitutional law.

[Taltarzac725]

The mentally ill are usually the targets of violence and not those who do it.

Originally Posted by Blueblaze

We had no problem outlawing lunatics for 200 years before they emptied the asylums -- and then we started having monthly mass-murder events. It's called cause-and-effect. In fact, we had semi-automatic rifles with large magazine for 100 of those years, without mass-murder events.

It has been illegal for lunatics to have access to weapons for as long as there have been lunatics and weapons. Turns out, much like thugs and bank robbers, lunatics tend to ignore the law when they go off their nut.

The only people your laws impact are the people who obey the law. They aren't the ones shooting up grade schools, so why do you want to confiscate their constitutional rights?

Its simple math. There are about 400 million semi-automatic weapons in circulation, and only about 10,000 lunatics. Much easier to lock up the lunatics than to confiscate 400 million guns from law-abiding citizens, who you will soon discover will simply ignore your unconstitutional law.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

We will never find the solution, until we're honest about the problem. And so far, we've not been.

We, the collective we as a country, have NOT been honest about the problem. Agreed. The problem of mass-murder events is increasing at a high rate in the US (as opposed to the countries). The problem is starting to bite hard into US society. There is no EASY solution. Many (like the NRA) are saying, "just keep the status quo and disregard the children dead in Uvalde." But, what happens in the future, when the children and adults are shot dead in every one of our hometowns and where we now live? When is the problem so large that it can't be ignored?

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

Yellow journalism - Wikipedia

I watch a lot of different channels for news and usually they are quite professional when dealing with mass shootings. Some channels aren't because they have to fill a 24 hour news day and they just repeat the same stories with small variations. Usually interviews of various talking heads who mostly share the same viewpoints with small variations. They might bring someone in as a counterpoint but that is usually to just make themselves look good in comparison.

There are rifles, shotguns, and the like that should not be sold at all to the general public. Some criminals always get around laws but as far as home defense there are many options available that will work very well. Some criminals will get access to weapons that the general public does not.

And the view of the 2nd Amendment creating some kind of right to create a revolution through arming of men and women of sound mind and with righteous motives, etc., I do not buy that the Founding Fathers wanted that. Roman history is full of armies fighting to put their own emperors on the throne and who work to make themselves rich and powerful off their own connection with this chosen emperor. You get endless civil wars through that or someone who claims to be chosen by God.

That was very thought provoking!

[Byte1]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

We, the collective we as a country, have NOT been honest about the problem. Agreed. The problem of mass-murder events is increasing at a high rate in the US (as opposed to the countries). The problem is starting to bite hard into US society. There is no EASY solution. Many (like the NRA) are saying, "just keep the status quo and disregard the children dead in Uvalde." But, what happens in the future, when the children and adults are shot dead in every one of our hometowns and where we now live? When is the problem so large that it can't be ignored?

We already went over the solution. You just don't agree to the answer. The solution to protecting the innocent and defenseless is to harden physical security. Cheaper than almost any other solution. Arming the teachers is not very feasible, as many do not like firearms, therefore probably not very gun-literate. However, in my opinion if one trusts teachers with the mental and physical safety of their children, why would they have a problem with a CCW qualified teacher carrying a firearm? Eliminating the 2nd Amendment will not stop murder. And if someone is naive enough to believe that banning certain types of guns will solve their problem, it won't and they are just living in a fantasy world. Once you ban one type of weapon, it only gives an opening to justify banning other weapons and then other types, etc. Yes, it would happen. Americans are not naive and know how an inch becomes a mile, especially/ESPECIALLY when it comes to overreach.
Remember, when one person can shoot 21 people with a bolt action rifle from a tall building, then banning certain type of weapons won't eliminate murder.

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

We, the collective we as a country, have NOT been honest about the problem. Agreed. The problem of mass-murder events is increasing at a high rate in the US (as opposed to the countries). The problem is starting to bite hard into US society. There is no EASY solution. Many (like the NRA) are saying, "just keep the status quo and disregard the children dead in Uvalde." But, what happens in the future, when the children and adults are shot dead in every one of our hometowns and where we now live? When is the problem so large that it can't be ignored?

The solution cannot be all-or-nothing, as some seem to see it. I fail to see the logic in refusing to implement methods that would provably lessen the number of shootings, apparently in favor of "answers" that even the most strident opponents of the 2nd. Amendment acknowledge would take decades to implement--even if such a decision is reached and made law, which again, the opponents acknowledge has little chance of happening.

This has been suggested here and in other threads numerous times. Sensationalizing these shootings to the extent that media does, has been shown in study after study to cause "copycat" crimes. The numbers vary but many give a minimum of 50% to a maximum of 80% of these shootings are copycat; choice of weapon, choice of target, etc. have tragic similarities, time after time. We CAN limit the reporting to "just the facts". But we don't. We seem, as a society, to WANT the sensationalizing to happen, even though we know it will result in more dead kids.

No one has yet attempted to give a rational reason why we don't do this.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Byte1

Rubber bullets? Flare guns? Surely, you jest?
Maybe rubber bullets would scare the bad guy away? Maybe a pop gun would be better?
Flare guns would be just great. Burn the school down while you burn the killer and all the students at the same time.
I thought this was a serious discussion about the second amendment.

Most teachers are averse to carrying LETHAL firearms. A flare gun or a rubber bullet shot at an armed intruder could delay his killing of children long enough for some of them to escape and/or the Police show up or a Principal or school guard to get there with a LETHAL lead firing pistol or rifle.
Rubber bullets and flare pistols are NOT a joke - they are better than NOTHING, which most teachers say that they will be carrying ......nothing.
.......And I have talked to a few Police Officers that said that a separate gun loaded with rubber bullets MIGHT be good in certain situations. They were open to the idea. Many Officers are NOT thrilled with a foot chase with a suspected perpetrator and then the decision to shoot them in the back, or not.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

There have been some terrible Supreme Court decisions and some very poor choices for members on it.

The 2nd Amendment is also very hard to interpret just what they wanted to do. Probably deliberately written that way.

Agreed. Can everyone say.......term limits?

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

If one believes the hype put forth by the 2nd Amendment critics, that the vast majority of Americans favor more restrictive gun laws than are presently in force--then the solution is obvious. The Founding Fathers made sure that there is a method by which the Constitution can be changed. The process is no secret. In fact over the history of the document, 27 amendments have been ratified and thus became part of the Constitution.

Why don't the folks who are critical of the 2nd Amendment implement implement that process? Seems like the obvious answer considering what their criticisms are.

I am not perfectly clear on the numbers, but I know for sure that enacting a NEW Amendment is a high (near impossible today) hurdle to get over. It needs something like 67 Senators to approve it. It would be hard to get 67 Senators to agree that the earth is round EVEN.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Byte1

We already went over the solution. You just don't agree to the answer. The solution to protecting the innocent and defenseless is to harden physical security. Cheaper than almost any other solution. Arming the teachers is not very feasible, as many do not like firearms, therefore probably not very gun-literate. However, in my opinion if one trusts teachers with the mental and physical safety of their children, why would they have a problem with a CCW qualified teacher carrying a firearm? Eliminating the 2nd Amendment will not stop murder. And if someone is naive enough to believe that banning certain types of guns will solve their problem, it won't and they are just living in a fantasy world. Once you ban one type of weapon, it only gives an opening to justify banning other weapons and then other types, etc. Yes, it would happen. Americans are not naive and know how an inch becomes a mile, especially/ESPECIALLY when it comes to overreach.
Remember, when one person can shoot 21 people with a bolt action rifle from a tall building, then banning certain type of weapons won't eliminate murder.

I gave my opinion earlier about hardening schools. Some schools might be hardened and it would be expensive and might require tax increases, which are like pulling teeth. Not all schools will be hardened. And neither can the US harden ALL high school football games, malls, churches, concerts, and other soft targets. That solution is SO weak that it is similar to "just not change anything because some people hate change" and will have little effect.

Australia and other countries have PROVEN CONCLUSIVELY that they LOWERED greatly the number of mass-murder events to close to ZERO. But US people are like the Australian bird with its head in the sand, with respect to ignoring the obvious solutions. The Australian bold and effective SOLUTION is RARELY mentioned on US TV. US people are adverse to change and are very ethnocentric ......to their own detriment.

True story.......During WW2 the US army carried its rifles (often loaded) on their shoulders with the barrel pointing upward. Australians carried their rifles on their shoulders with the barrel pointed downward. When asked by Americans why they did such a STUPID thing. The Aussies just laughed and said that it is better to shoot yourself in the foot than in the head!

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Byte1

"Reality?" Have you ever fired a shotgun inside a structure, such as a home? Yes, a shotgun is very effective. Yes, it is a very good self defense weapon. However, I hope you are prepared to refurbish your home afterward. I have personally seen how much damage a shotgun does in a home and how messy a body torn apart by a shotgun can be. Thank goodness I did not have to clean up the mess. And you are wrong regarding a shotgun NOT penetrating an interior wall. And I hope you do not have someone else in the house that you are firing that shotgun in when you fire it. Hopefully, you won't hit someone else because the pattern spreads as it moves away from the muzzle, as I am sure you KNOW since you seem to know so much about firearms. Perhaps, you would prefer to use rubber bullets on the intruder or a flare gun? Personally, if I was better with my throwing arm, maybe I would chuck a few tomatoes to scare the bad guy away

Well, I do know a few things about firearms and a very SIMPLE KNOWN fact is that the pellets from a shotgun do NOT, definitely NOT, BEGIN spreading out at the end of the barrel. That is because from about 1960 on most, if not all, shotgun shells are made with the pellets enclosed in a PLASTIC cup. This was designed to give any given shotgun a LONGER range - duck and pheasant hunters LOVED the improvement.

The shot charge moves as one mass (of lead pellets and plastic cup) for about 20 yards and then the pellets begin to spread out in a conical pattern. The choke of the shotgun also has a slight influence. Less than most people think.
.......as far as using a shotgun for home defense goes - one needs to be aware of the shot pellet size - 00 is used for killing deer - number 2 or 4 for geese and turkey - number 6 or 7.5 for pheasant - number 8 for doves and quail.
So, the 00 shot could penetrate drywall, but would lose a lot of energy doing it. Personally, I would choose about number 5 shot for home defense. And personally, I don't see much difference in the amount of danger caused by an erratic shot for a family member in another room BETWEEN a shotgun and an AR-15 type rifle chambered for a .223 cartridge. And the same thing for a pistol cartridge. Of those options, I would think that the shotgun would be somewhat safer.

[Sarah_W]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

Yellow journalism - Wikipedia

I watch a lot of different channels for news and usually they are quite professional when dealing with mass shootings. Some channels aren't because they have to fill a 24 hour news day and they just repeat the same stories with small variations. Usually interviews of various talking heads who mostly share the same viewpoints with small variations. They might bring someone in as a counterpoint but that is usually to just make themselves look good in comparison.

There are rifles, shotguns, and the like that should not be sold at all to the general public. Some criminals always get around laws but as far as home defense there are many options available that will work very well. Some criminals will get access to weapons that the general public does not.

And the view of the 2nd Amendment creating some kind of right to create a revolution through arming of men and women of sound mind and with righteous motives, etc., I do not buy that the Founding Fathers wanted that. Roman history is full of armies fighting to put their own emperors on the throne and who work to make themselves rich and powerful off their own connection with this chosen emperor. You get endless civil wars through that or someone who claims to be chosen by God.

Our third President, Thomas Jefferson would disagree. He was not present for the debates and drafting of the Constitution because Congress had sent him to Paris. He was indeed aware and eventually received a copy in Paris. Below is his letter to John Adam's son-in-law, William Stephens Smith.

****

To William Stephens Smith
Paris Nov. 13. 1787.

Dear Sir
I am now to acknolege the receipt of your favors of October the 4th. 8th. and 26th. In the last you apologize for your letters of introduction to Americans coming here. It is so far from needing apology on your part, that it calls for thanks on mine. I endeavor to shew civilities to all the Americans who come here, and who will give me opportunities of doing it: and it is a matter of comfort to know from a good quarter what they are, and how far I may go in my attentions to them.

—Can you send me Woodmason’s bills for the two copying presses for the M. de la fayette, and the M. de Chastellux? The latter makes one article in a considerable account, of old standing, and which I cannot present for want of this article.

—I do not know whether it is to yourself or Mr. Adams I am to give my thanks for the copy of the new constitution. I beg leave through you to place them where due. It will be yet three weeks before I shall receive them from America. There are very good articles in it: and very bad. I do not know which preponderate. What we have lately read in the history of Holland, in the chapter on the Stadtholder, would have sufficed to set me against a Chief magistrate eligible for a long duration, if I had ever been disposed towards one: and what we have always read of the elections of Polish kings should have forever excluded the idea of one continuable for life. Wonderful is the effect of impudent and persevering lying.

The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, and what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it’s motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion. The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.

We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.

Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusets: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen yard in order. I hope in god this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted.—You ask me if any thing transpires here on the subject of S. America? Not a word. I know that there are combustible materials there, and that they wait the torch only. But this country probably will join the extinguishers.—The want of facts worth communicating to you has occasioned me to give a little loose to dissertation. We must be contented to amuse, when we cannot inform. Present my respects to Mrs. Smith, and be assured of the sincere esteem of Dear Sir Your friend & servant,
Th: Jefferson

****
I've bolded the pertinent parts. I'm not advocating for a rebellion or revolution but would never suggest we surrender our ability to do exactly that. When I hear talk of banning firearms that We The People have had for 65 years in our private possession, I begin to wonder about motive. When statistics are manipulated to instill panic ignorant, I begin to wonder about motive. By ignorant, I mean the very definition of the word "to be lacking in knowledge or awareness".

I see people lament that AR styled rifles are the weapon of choice for mass shooters, but when you educate them as to the facts, according to the authorities, and the next day they are back to their previous claim it goes beyond ignorance. When I educate someone and they continue to ignore the facts, that is a blocked mind with an opinion not worth the effort to hear or read. Brainwashed is what some people say.

Bans on such rifles have absolutely nothing to do with keeping We The People safe.

Our Founding Fathers knew exactly what they were writing when they wrote "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". The men in that room weren't talking about the next Turkey Shoot or 3 Gun Competition. They were talking about how to keep their posterity free and ensure Liberty for generations. Regardless of whether or not you choose to exercise a Right, you should never surrender it.