[ElLegal]

Originally Posted by BigSteph

I think we do have too many guns in America. I own guns but can be realistic about it.

The thing is, it is not the entirety of the issue.

Google acid attacks in London. Knife attacks in the UK.

If you want to hear about mass casualty, Google Bow and Arrow killer in Norway.

I would agree that guns do enable mentally ill people to commit mass casualty events more broadly and severely.

So how many guns do you think the government should “allow” citizens to own?

Problem is mental illness.

But again if people couldn’t get their hands on guns, And they were hellbent on harming others, not having a gun wouldn’t get in their way.
🥃🥃

[Woodbear]

It is painful to read how uneducated some are when it comes to guns. A new AR platform ban is a joke. Below is 2 pictures of the SAME firearm. One has a wood stock and the other is scary black. They both shoot the same round. They both can change their magazine capacity. They are equally effective at doing their job. So what is an AR.......a normal gun in a costume!

[jdulej]

Originally Posted by Woodbear

The shooter legally purchased two AR platform rifles from a federally licensed gun store. This WOULD have required a background check.

Does anyone know if a background check (Fed or state, if there is one) reaches back to a person's history when they were a minor? The check on the current mass killer would be pretty pointless if it only covered the 2 days when he was 18+.

[MDLNB]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

Spoken like someone who buys the NRA propaganda lock, stock, and double-barrel.

Here's a clue for you (you won't listen to it but here it is anyway):

The NRA has spread the meme about "the only protection against a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

The NRA is having their convention this weekend. The NRA convention, supposedly FILLED with nothing but the "best" guys with guns - has banned guns at the convention.

Why is that? Why would they be afraid of the one bad guy with a gun, in a convention filled with thousands of goods guys with guns? Why would they need to forbid ALL firearms there?

The answer: because they don't believe that the only way to protect against a bad guy with a gun is to be a good guy with a gun. They don't believe a word of it. What they believe, is that one bad guy with a gun is a really BAD thing, and since they have no way of knowing which guy is the bad one, they're telling them that none of them can have them. You know, the one thing they're accusing certain political party people of trying to do to them - take away their guns.

At their convention - they're taking away your guns. That's what the NRA is doing, to their own guests at their own convention.

But doing that isn't right for anyone else. It's only right for them.

It's already been explained that the reason for banning guns at the "NRA convention" was because Trump was speaking there. Don't you think that the SS has enough difficulty protecting high profile subjects?

[Keefelane66]

It’s good to know there is only ONE Casket maker of children’s Caskets 4 sizes in 12 colors. Cherokee Casket Company/ Georgia they are donating them to the Texas Families

[MDLNB]

Originally Posted by Woodbear

It is painful to read how uneducated some are when it comes to guns. A new AR platform ban is a joke. Below is 2 pictures of the SAME firearm. One has a wood stock and the other is scary black. They both shoot the same round. They both can change their magazine capacity. They are equally effective at doing their job. So what is an AR.......a normal gun in a costume!

Excellent point, but it will go way over the heads of most of the posters on here. You will hear such as "patato-potato" "clip or magazine" "too much trouble spelling it out" etc. They will criticize others and then chastise them on being corrected themselves. You can't win with the ignorant on a subject, when they are not prepared to discuss the subject civilly. Even some of us agree with each other and argue "semantics." Instead of addressing the reason/cause of the assault or how to prevent one gun owner in 150 million from going on a rampage, they would rather punish ALL gun owners with their ignorance. To stop a gun fight, get rid of the guns. To stop a DUI, get rid of the booze or automobile. To stop bad language, outlaw the terms.



The example you provided is of (I believe) a Ruger 10/22 rifle that is one of the most popular 22 cal rifles on the market. For around a hundred bucks or so, one can convert it to the one shown after your first example. The second one is commonly mistaken by the ignorant as an assault weapon because it has black plastic on it and it looks threatening(?). You can purchase a 50 round "magazine" that will fit either one and exchangeable. Both will fire as fast as you can pull the trigger.

From what I have read, the shooter at the school did NOT have an AR-15, but an AR-15 look alike. I can't confirm that, but it is possible. The type of gun does not make a difference because all guns are dangerous. Some on here insist that they do not wish to ban "all guns" just the "assault weapons" like the ones used in the mass shooting. They don't even know what they are talking about, yet they insist that "assault weapons" are dangerous.

The perpetrator left plenty of warning of what he was going to do. He was ignored. I got that from what I read in the news, so I can't confirm the source. However, he was known to have a "temper" and to "mutilate himself." He used social media and threatened to "shoot up a school." He was said to have been "bullied and to be a bully." Could these details be warning signs?

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by MDLNB

It's already been explained that the reason for banning guns at the "NRA convention" was because Trump was speaking there. Don't you think that the SS has enough difficulty protecting high profile subjects?

Please3 explain this rationale.

Guns make us safe. More gun make us safer, Gun free zones are worthless because makes it easier to kill us.

Trump will be there, so it is too hard to keep him safe unless we ban guns. What could be safer for Trump than a room full of ardent supporters packing?

The hypocrisy is blatant. Everyday in every way we are told we need more guns to make us safer, but Trump needs more guns to keep him safer from his own supporters?

[MDLNB]

Originally Posted by Sarah_W

Yeah, banana mag sounds odd, doesn't it? I can't ignore the significant uptick in firearms sales since January of 2020 and the rabid hoarding of ammunition. The shear number of first time gun buyers is/was hugely significant. That tells me people were and still are afraid and feel vulnerable. A high percentage of my students relate these feelings to me. When the pandemic began I lived 40 miles north of Los Angeles. Hoarding of common household items became a serious problem. People were actually hurting other people in stores. Crime rose dramatically with home invasions. By mid 2020 what the future held was anyones guess. I lived with my cousin and we made risk assessments of our home. We made contingency plans. Obviously, I feel quite capable of defending my home, but what about beyond? CA's Governor shut down gun shops for a while and all of the sudden we knew exactly what its like to not be able to buy ammo. Being in "the business" I had professional contacts and I made sure not to fall below 1,000 rounds in any caliber. I have to have ammo to teach and of course for my own needs.

It disturbs me when evil people, criminals conduct their heinous crimes, killing innocents, especially children. To the core. Then our Legislators want to tell me that I can't have this gun or that gun. Not because of my conduct or my behavior but because of the conduct of an evil person.

i can't accept their reasoning.

Excellent post! And one that many (millions) gun owners empathize with.

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by ElLegal

So how many guns do you think the government should “allow” citizens to own?

Problem is mental illness.

But again if people couldn’t get their hands on guns, And they were hellbent on harming others, not having a gun wouldn’t get in their way.
🥃🥃

What type of guns should the government ALLOW to have? I want an M1 Tank. It's just a car with a built in gun. If I can't have that, why can't I have a fully automatic weapon, like an old school m50?

Please, tell me so I can understand why I can have what I want when the constitution says my right to be armed shall not be restricted. It sure seems like it is being restricted.

Sorry, I have been told to stop repeating myself. All I do is respond to the same posts by different people. It's almost like so many watch the same shows - them come here and repeat what they have been told - almost word for word. You know when a detective is investigating a case, and she hears exactly the same story for multiple people - it raises a flag.

[jdulej]

Originally Posted by MDLNB

It's already been explained that the reason for banning guns at the "NRA convention" was because Trump was speaking there. Don't you think that the SS has enough difficulty protecting high profile subjects?

You're sort of making the original poster's point. A room full of people with guns means you've got something to worry about. A room full of people without guns, means you have a lot less to worry about. The NRA tries to spin it the other way round.

For me, I'd much rather be in a store or school or a church (not that you could drag me into one of those) full of people without guns.

[PugMom]

Originally Posted by MDLNB

Excellent point, but it will go way over the heads of most of the posters on here. You will hear such as "patato-potato" "clip or magazine" "too much trouble spelling it out" etc. They will criticize others and then chastise them on being corrected themselves. You can't win with the ignorant on a subject, when they are not prepared to discuss the subject civilly. Even some of us agree with each other and argue "semantics." Instead of addressing the reason/cause of the assault or how to prevent one gun owner in 150 million from going on a rampage, they would rather punish ALL gun owners with their ignorance. To stop a gun fight, get rid of the guns. To stop a DUI, get rid of the booze or automobile. To stop bad language, outlaw the terms.



The example you provided is of (I believe) a Ruger 10/22 rifle that is one of the most popular 22 cal rifles on the market. For around a hundred bucks or so, one can convert it to the one shown after your first example. The second one is commonly mistaken by the ignorant as an assault weapon because it has black plastic on it and it looks threatening(?). You can purchase a 50 round "magazine" that will fit either one and exchangeable. Both will fire as fast as you can pull the trigger.

From what I have read, the shooter at the school did NOT have an AR-15, but an AR-15 look alike. I can't confirm that, but it is possible. The type of gun does not make a difference because all guns are dangerous. Some on here insist that they do not wish to ban "all guns" just the "assault weapons" like the ones used in the mass shooting. They don't even know what they are talking about, yet they insist that "assault weapons" are dangerous.

The perpetrator left plenty of warning of what he was going to do. He was ignored. I got that from what I read in the news, so I can't confirm the source. However, he was known to have a "temper" and to "mutilate himself." He used social media and threatened to "shoot up a school." He was said to have been "bullied and to be a bully." Could these details be warning signs?

excellent post, because everyone knows that evil gun jumped off the rack on it's own & single handedly took down innocent kids. never mind the wacko carrying the gun, or the various posts he made of himself with the weapons, with a tag line ;kids be afraid 2day, or the red flags that showed up in his social media posts. nope, it was all the gun's fault

[MDLNB]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

What type of guns should the government ALLOW to have? I want an M1 Tank. It's just a car with a built in gun. If I can't have that, why can't I have a fully automatic weapon, like an old school m50?

Please, tell me so I can understand why I can have what I want when the constitution says my right to be armed shall not be restricted. It sure seems like it is being restricted.

Sorry, I have been told to stop repeating myself. All I do is respond to the same posts by different people. It's almost like so many watch the same shows - them come here and repeat what they have been told - almost word for word. You know when a detective is investigating a case, and she hears exactly the same story for multiple people - it raises a flag.

I'm sorry that no one has answered your question to your satisfaction. Please allow me to answer the question that you probably already know the answer to. You CAN own a M1 tank and/or a fully automatic weapon. Google is your friend. If you apply for a federal permit and undergo a background check and pay a substantial fee, you can own the tank and/or the fully automatic weapon. And you can even call it an "assault weapon" if it pleases you. There you, you're welcome.

[PugMom]

Originally Posted by jdulej

You're sort of making the original poster's point. A room full of people with guns means you've got something to worry about. A room full of people without guns, means you have a lot less to worry about. The NRA tries to spin it the other way round.

For me, I'd much rather be in a store or school or a church (not that you could drag me into one of those) full of people without guns.

it's the exact opposite where we are. half the neighborhood is ex military or ex police. i'd say a GOOD number are armed properly. good guys with guns always makes me feel safer

[MartinSE]

Originally Posted by Davonu

Couldn’t disagree more.

The moon was a technical challenge, with absolute, computable solutions. Dealing with human mental illness and evil to stop heinous acts of mass murder is far more complex.

See it is hard to solve something when you are looking in the wrong places. Mental health is a red herring being pushed by the parties with a vested interest. I can post links to dozens of studies by top psychologists in the world (but I wont because I have been given a vacation for posting too many links - spamming they called it). And they all come to the same conclusion - summarized by this:

Are All Mass Shooters Mentally Ill?

Here is the link, but I know most wont bother to read it, since it might disturb peoples world view. If you are interested in truth and not propaganda as so many claim - the take a look.

"They discovered that only 11% of all mass murderers (including shooters) and only 8% of mass shooters had a serious mental illness. They also found that mass shooters in the United States were more likely to have legal histories, use recreational drugs, abuse alcohol, and have histories of non-psychotic psychiatric or neurologic symptoms."

Let me repeat that, 8% of mass shooters have mental health problems associated with the shooting.

According to John Hopkins Medicine , 26% of Americans 18 and older have some form of diagnosable mental health.

Repeat that - 8% of shooters are mentally ill, 26% of the general population are mentally ill. Hmm.

So, there is an interesting anomaly here - MORE people that are NOT mass murders have some form of mental illness than the mass shooter. The shooters would seem to be "healthier". (that would be a false comparison, for those paying attention - since there are very few shooters so the sample size is very small.)

Mental Health Disorder Statistics | Johns Hopkins Medicine

According to other sources, 20% of the worlds population has mental health issues.

So, PLEASE, since you claim mental health explains mass shootings and school murders, PLEASE explain why the US is the ONLY country experiencing regular school shooting. Great Britain hasn't had one since 1996 with they banned most guns. Coincidence?

PLEASE explain WHY there are not MORE shootings since the general population has 3 times as much mental illness as the shooter population?

There, Did I repeat it enough times?

I won't wait for an answer, since EVERY single person I have asked, failed to respond with an answer. Typically if they answer at all they just deflect with "things are different here - yeah they are different. We have 400 million guns on circulation. And in this particular case virtually no requirements to buy a gun except a government ID, be 18, and breathing. (Oh and a pocket full of money)

[Bay Kid]

Originally Posted by jdulej

Does anyone know if a background check (Fed or state, if there is one) reaches back to a person's history when they were a minor? The check on the current mass killer would be pretty pointless if it only covered the 2 days when he was 18+.

Just because he was a minor 2 days before he bought guns they don't look at his past history. Lots and lots of minors are already criminals. Just because they turn 18 doesn't make them new saints. Don't blame the gun, blame the law that doesn't look at the history of this crazy punk kid.