[Trayderjoe]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

Universal background checks are not universal, because they only apply to sales at authorized dealerships, not at gun shows. The "gun show loophole" is an actual thing.

Wrong once again. As I had previously posted to this same claim in May (link):

"Yeah, not quite. Many licensed gun dealers (FFLs) attend gun shows. Federal law requires that an FFL conduct a background check whenever they sell a firearm, whether at their own store or at a booth at a gun show. The ONLY time an FFL is not required under federal law to conduct a background check is if the purchaser has a valid firearm license from the state that is not less than 5 years old per 18 U.S. Code § 922(t). I can't speak to Texas, but my experience in Florida is that license or not, a background check is conducted when purchasing a firearm from an FFL.

It is correct that a private sale does not require a background check and there are some private sales that do occur at gun shows. However, these types of sales are typically "one offs" and not someone at a table selling a hundred guns. Telling you that responsible gun owners making a private sale won't just sell a gun to anyone will fall on deaf ears, but at least I tried."

[Sarah_W]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

Universal background checks are not universal, because they only apply to sales at authorized dealerships, not at gun shows. The "gun show loophole" is an actual thing.

If the dealer is at a gun show they still do the background check on all new and used firearms. 21 states require background checks for private party transfers, including gun hows.

That leaves 29 states that do require a background check for a private party transfer.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Byte1

I think I saw that movie, but I don't think she was the "best sniper."

"The most deadly sniper of World War II: Simo Häyhä. He had 542 confirmed kills, with an unconfirmed total number of 705. Not only is he the most deadly sniper of World War II, but he is also believed to be the most deadly sniper of all time. All his kills were against the Red Army, who nicknamed him White Death."

That's an interesting nickname.......same as mine when I came up to bat years ago in softball.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

Men AND women. There is no reason why women should be exempt from military service, from basic training, learning how to fight, learning about their weapons from assembling and field stripping, to shooting and everything in between.

Just like they do in Israel and several other countries around the globe.

Women in the Israel Defense Forces - Wikipedia

Yes, absolutely.........my mistake.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Sarah_W

Suggestion. Don't create a Master Class on Snipers or Mass Shooters.

The Mundane Pistol

In 2007 the Virginia Tech shooting resulted in 32 killed and 23 injured. The shooter used a pistol.

In 1991 the Luby's shooting in Killeen, Texas resulted in 23 killed and 27 injured. The shooter used a pistol.

2009 Fort Hood shooting resulted in 14 killed and 32 injured. The shooter used two pistols, a semiautomatic and a revolver.

1986 Edmund Post Office shooting resulted in 14 killed and 6 injured. The shooter used a pistol.

I could go on and on. It's public information.

Semi-automatic Rifles

The semi-automatic rifle was invented in 1885. Over the past 137 years we have had 7 mass shooting events as you described with 20 or more killed.

The facts clearly show that mass murderers are NOT choosing to be a great distance from the victims to demonstrate their sniper skills. The hunt in gun free zones and are ambush hunters cutting down their victims up close and personal. It seems the MSM is more effective of creating panic than the AR is.

I am thinking that the average killed during mass murder events is much lower with a pistol than with a RIFLE. But, a lot of their success would depend on how much planning they put into and luck would also play a big factor.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Sarah_W

The problem with that theory is Australia didn't solve the problem. They forced their mass murderers to use a different weapon resulting in more mass murder events and more people being killed. It's a hollow victory to suggest, well, gun deaths went down, but knife deaths are way up. Winning! Trading one weapon for another and not reducing the deaths isn't winning.

Every person doesn't have to be armed. Only one person has to be armed and procient to stop a killer. I don't know how many people were in that food court, but Elisha Dicken stopped the killer all by himself before the 911 Operator could say, "state your emergency".

26 of our States now have Constitutional carry. If that was nationwide it would be effective. We're 16 pages into this thread and there is still NO evidence or proof that infringing on American's Right to keep and bear arms will stop mass murder. The reason is plain to see. Law abiding citizens don't kill people. Criminals do. Disarming law abiding citizens will not stop the criminals.

I don't have such a low opinion of our citizens to believe they would be irresponsible with firearms.

As to the last sentence. I would say that I have driven through many states and seen many stop signs with many, many bullet holes through them. That to me is irrefutable proof that Americans can be "irresponsible with firearms"!!!!!!!

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Sarah_W

The problem with that theory is Australia didn't solve the problem. They forced their mass murderers to use a different weapon resulting in more mass murder events and more people being killed. It's a hollow victory to suggest, well, gun deaths went down, but knife deaths are way up. Winning! Trading one weapon for another and not reducing the deaths isn't winning.

Every person doesn't have to be armed. Only one person has to be armed and procient to stop a killer. I don't know how many people were in that food court, but Elisha Dicken stopped the killer all by himself before the 911 Operator could say, "state your emergency".

26 of our States now have Constitutional carry. If that was nationwide it would be effective. We're 16 pages into this thread and there is still NO evidence or proof that infringing on American's Right to keep and bear arms will stop mass murder. The reason is plain to see. Law abiding citizens don't kill people. Criminals do. Disarming law abiding citizens will not stop the criminals.

I don't have such a low opinion of our citizens to believe they would be irresponsible with firearms.

As to the 3rd paragraph.......I have no intention to interfere with American rights to keep and bear arms. I just want them to bear the arms that shoot a little slower like bolt-actions and single shots. Slower actions than semi-auto give Police more time to arrive and give children and adults more time to run or hide. Also, magazine capacities over 5 should not be allowed to be sold any longer and no silencers and bump-stops. Just as a thought experiment......the Constitution did not say bump-stops should be legal.....mere mortals in the gun-greed industry decided that.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Sarah_W

I wish my fellow Americans would actually do the research instead of believing what someone tells them to think. It is ridiculous to compare "gun deaths" while ignoring the alternative deaths. To say the US has far more gun deaths than Australia after Australia severely disarmed it's citizens is disingenuous analysis. We are way better than the Middle East when it comes to honor killings. We are way better than India when it comes to acid attacks.

What propaganda are you referring to?

What evidence do you have that gun violence is rapidly increasing?

Present your evidence and cite your sources.

Gun-related Homicides are at a record last year and up from that this year to date. FBI records.

[Kenswing]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

I am thinking that the average killed during mass murder events is much lower with a pistol than with a RIFLE. But, a lot of their success would depend on how much planning they put into and luck would also play a big factor.

No, you’re not thinking. After all of the data that Sarah has provided you still refuse to accept the fact that pistols kill far more people than rifles and are the mass murderers weapon of choice. Now you’ll probably go off on some tangent about snipers. Don’t bother.

[Kenswing]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

As to the 3rd paragraph.......I have no intention to interfere with American rights to keep and bear arms. I just want them to bear the arms that shoot a little slower like bolt-actions and single shots. Slower actions than semi-auto give Police more time to arrive and give children and adults more time to run or hide. Also, magazine capacities over 5 should not be allowed to be sold any longer and no silencers and bump-stops. Just as a thought experiment......the Constitution did not say bump-stops should be legal.....mere mortals in the gun-greed industry decided that.

How did you arrive at the five round magazine limit? Just “thinking” again?

There’s no such thing as a silencer. But even if there were, what makes you think it would cut down on mass murder? I haven’t seen silencers or even sound suppressors listed as being common during mass shootings.

What’s a bump stop? I’ve heard you mention it several times. If you’re referring to a bump stock, they have already been banned.

You really need to start doing at least a minimal amount of research on this topic unless your only purpose here is to troll people.

[Sarah_W]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

As to the 3rd paragraph.......I have no intention to interfere with American rights to keep and bear arms. I just want them to bear the arms that shoot a little slower like bolt-actions and single shots. Slower actions than semi-auto give Police more time to arrive and give children and adults more time to run or hide. Also, magazine capacities over 5 should not be allowed to be sold any longer and no silencers and bump-stops. Just as a thought experiment......the Constitution did not say bump-stops should be legal.....mere mortals in the gun-greed industry decided that.

I see. So, you only support the Bill of Rights a little bit. When you say, you can have these arms but you can't have those arms it is interfering with American Rights to keep and bear arms. Saying the military and law enforcement can have semi-automatic rifles, but not We The People, is absolutely infringing on the 2nd Amendment.

When people outsource their security, they will be disappointed. I prefer 15 seconds response time over 12 minutes response time. But, that's just me.

[Sarah_W]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

As to the last sentence. I would say that I have driven through many states and seen many stop signs with many, many bullet holes through them. That to me is irrefutable proof that Americans can be "irresponsible with firearms"!!!!!!!

I'll be darned! I've been through 45 of our states and have never seen that!

[Sarah_W]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Gun-related Homicides are at a record last year and up from that this year to date. FBI records.

Show me. Where is the link. I'd like to see the last 20 years of data.

[Kenswing]

Originally Posted by Sarah_W

Show me. Where is the link. I'd like to see the last 20 years of data.

He doesn’t work for Bloomberg and doesn’t get paid for that. lol

[jimbomaybe]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Gun-related Homicides are at a record last year and up from that this year to date. FBI records.

"Restorative" justice and the changes made under the rubric of "Defund the police" have had their predicted effect, I am sure that these spectacular failures of social policy will never get the credit due them