[SHIBUMI]

the point was to tax them.......semantics is what causes no action to be taken......money talks....discussion gets nothing done other than allowing people to vent....no solution

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

He was scared about collateral damage if he took the shot.

In the near future, there may be more developments in non-lethal weapons. The police may be able to send in some remote control type of robot armed with some type of non-lethal weapons. it looked like that was needed in Uvalde, where the Police were not decisive enough about the situation. A remote control door and wall demolishing robot would have also been useful. Even making a hole in the wall big enough to send in a few tear gas grenades would have helped.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Bay Kid

In the end our enemies would like to make sure Americans do not have any guns. Then only the crooks, military and China/Russia have guns. Then with the help of all the illegal young people placed all around America we can be overtaken with ease.

Either that, or they can encourage people who shouldn't have guns, to get lots of them, and throw billions at lobbyists to ensure that this happens.

Then, everyone in the states can just kill each other off, and "our enemies" don't have to get their hands bloodied. They just come in and loot the place.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by fcgiii

What is a mass murder event? One that hits the national media.

Are guns the problem? Not for Timothy McVey.

What is an assault rifle? A semiautomatic rifle whose name starts with AR.

What happens when you outlaw guns? Then only outlaws …

Oh, you know the thing

So when it happens to your kids/grandkids/nieces or nephews or "any kid you might possibly give a crap about" while they're in school one day...

You'll just shrug it off. Afterall, boys will be boys, but dangit they have the right to their gun!

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Annie66

Are we going to parse words here? I believe most readers understood my definition of an assault weapon as a semi-automatic rifle with a high-capacity magazine capable of firing a high rate of fire. Heinous crimes can be defined as any crime resulting serious injuries or death; often to multiple people. The injures can be either physical or mental damage as a result of the event.

None of it matters. It's a strawman, a red herring, a logical fallacy.

The "problem" has nothing to do with definitions of anything at all. The "problem" is that people who shouldn't have firearms, have them anyway, and are using them to do what firearms are built to do: kill. They're killing people, with devices that are intended to kill, that is their primary function, the thing they were created to do. And they're killing people with a device that they shouldn't be allowed to have.

Any device that's *primary* function is to kill, should require that you have proven capable and qualified, in every way, shape, and form, to accept the responsibility of having such a device. And that means background checks and licensing with actual tests for competency using the device.

The "problem" in this specific thread, is that it exists to deflect from the actual problem.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Aces4

Point being, if there are mental health issues, simply removing a gun won’t work. If they are ill and determined, there are far worse tactics they will use. A gun may be less lethal than other methods that may be employed… the Oklahoma bombing tragedy comes to mind among other schemes.

Not counting car bombs or pressure cooker bombs........ a blunt instrument like a hammer would not be a weapon of choice for a mass murderer - it would be more likely a spur of the moment of passion type of weapon of choice. Because bystanders would be more likely to quickly intervene against some killer swinging a hammer than a killer holding a firearm. The most effective firearm of choice would be a semi-auto rifle or one with a bump stop device attached.

.....Why is a semi-automatic rifle a more effective weapon of choice as opposed to handguns? The rifle gives a killer a greater separation distance from the crowd that he targeted. Thus giving the opportunity to gain the best position so as NOT to be easily counterattacked by Police or civilians. The shooter in the suburb of Chicago that dressed as a woman was at the top of a building and had a low wall in front of himself for protection. The Las Vegas shooter killed 60 people from the window of an elevated hotel building. He used rifles and a bump stop accessory.
.....Five or so people in a crowd could be killed by a demented person running through a crowd using a handgun or handguns, but it would be more likely that someone in the crowd could stop them than someone using a rifle from distance and a better position. A more simple way to look at the rifle vs pistol question - is that Army snipers use rifles, not pistols. A greater % of all murders may be perpetrated by pistols than rifles, but the AR-15 type rifle and the AK-47 are the weapons of choice for the DOMESTIC terrorist rifle. These rifles are the firearms that are causing the MOST FEAR AND APPREHENSION among children returning to school soon and what most comes to an adult's mind when they are inside a church or at a large public event. Basically, the TERROR component for those RIFLES is greater than for PISTOLS. The smartest course for America to do is to discontinue the sales of semi-auto rifles, remove those found by police during crimes, and do buybacks in a way similar to that done by Australia and many other countries that have reduced their mass murder events to near ZERO !

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Sarah_W

My mistake on the medical errors it appears I put in an extra zero. It should have said 300,000 people die every year from medical errors. Your Health Care May Kill You: Medical Errors - PubMed

Yes, 300,000 sounds more reasonable and there could be a reporting range depending on definitions.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Sarah_W

I don't see that happening. Forced buy back is the same thing as gun confiscation. The term is comical actually since the government didn't sell the guns in the first place they can't "buy back". I do not see this ever happening in our country. I can't fathom the loss of life from the people who would refuse to surrender their guns added to the loss of life from those trying to confiscate them.

Let's use some critical thinking here. As we know most mass shootings are done with handguns. If you think Americans would ever surrender handguns, well, I have no uncertainty the answer is no. Therefore, all of this effort is over AR styled rifles. Millions of dollars spent to try to ban them. I did the math in an earlier post but the reality is AR style rifles are responsible for 30-40 murders per year. So, the 77% of mass shootings would still occur and the 23% of killers who preferred to use an AR wouldn't have one and therefore would opt for handguns instead to do their mass shooting. What would we gain?

Let's start by hardening the schools, which is much more cost effective, and we begin by saving children.

In the Las Vegas shooting 60 people were killed. It was done basically with a rifle - the preferred weapon of choice by killers PLANNING to kill large numbers of unrelated people. That PRODUCES terror and has people running and panicking when they hear a car backfire and they are in a crowd. The large mass murder PLANNED events of DOMESTIC terrorists are what has people looking over their shoulders at sports events, concerts, and churches.

Pistols are more likely to be involved in UNPLANNED murders of fewer people than rifles.
........I am NOT suggesting confiscation. What I am suggesting is that at the present day DRAMATIC increased rate of mass murders, eventually, society will be forced to say, "no mas" and strike a BALANCE between the insatiable greed of the gun manufacturers and the rights of Americans to NOT be gunned down in public !

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Sarah_W

In the words of Col. Jeff Cooper, if you find yourself in a fair fight your tactics suck.

That is an older quote from an older time that was applicable when DOMESTIC terror was much less of a problem. And actually, most Police complain about the fact that they are OUTGUNNED by the bad guys. So today Mr. Cooper might agree that because of manufacturers' greed and too many guns on the street in 18-year-old hands that the bad guys have flipped the script on the good guys.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Woodbear

I find it humorous when the uneducated call for military style or AR/AK weapon ban. There is nothing available off the shelf today in a plastic scary black configuration that is any different than its wood stock version. I can put racing decals and a number on my Camry, but that does not make it a NASCAR. In the picture below, we have the same gun in differing stocks. Same projectile, same action system, and same barrel configuration. Nothing differentiates the lethality of one gun over the other. The guns that so many want to ban is nothing but a "normal" gun in a scary black costume.

That is exactly why Australia and many other counties made laws against all semi-automatic rifles and did buybacks. Then their mass murder events dropped to nearly zero

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by RickyLee

so if Susie JoBob owns a high end chassis rifle accessorized with high quality optics, a suppressor, a bi-pod and other competition accessories. Maybe he/she owns multiple high end competition weapons. When the confiscation time comes or even a buyback, do you really think he she will be compensated fairly? Maybe he she should just lose their investment? How about when they outlaw combustion vehicles and they come to take your Mercedes and your Lexus and your kids Nissan should they compensate you fairly? How will this be funded? Who will pay for it?

Crime and criminal activity and mass murder and DOMESTIC terrorism also cost society in America lots of MONEY.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Woodbear

Why would we hold the manufacturer of an inanimate object liable? Did the weapon load itself? Did it discharge itself? Did it aim itself at the victim?

Do we hold GM, Ford, Toyota, Honda or Dodge liable for their contribution to drunk driving deaths? NO.......why, because they were not the responsible party.

A legal item manufacturer should NEVER be held responsible for its item being used by an individual in an illegal manner.

Australia and other counties NOT led around by the nose by the NRA solved that very problem by making certain classes of firearms illegal. If DOMESTIC terrorism continues to increase as it has in the last 2 years the American people's need for less bloodshed will override the greed of the NRA.

[Sarah_W]

Originally Posted by Jacob85

Where did you get your 77 percent statement? I would question that

There are several sources one can look at.
The federal government states 77.2% Public Mass Shootings: Database Amasses Details of a Half Century of U.S. Mass Shootings with Firearms, Generating Psychosocial Histories | National Institute of Justice


EveryTown is a gun control organization. They state 81% are with handguns.



I do my best to be very realistic with my calculations and choose the lower number.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by jedalton

the bad guys always find a way around the law.

If that were true then no bad guys would be in prison and we would not need prisons.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by pendi99

We need to reopen mental health facilities where the worst are housed

Did we not have an earlier post that correctly stated that the mentally ill are more likely to be abused than to do the abuse?