...

Actually the information about alcohol related auto deaths was posted in response to this post:

Originally Posted by ColdNoMore View Post
The tiresome, red herring and disingenuous argument of "if someone wants to kill, they will find a way," is a big reason that next to nothing has been done...about the MOST common method used by mass murderers.

I'm sure there have been those who have been killed with a purse too, but it is extremely rare and no one with any sense...would think of restrictions on purses.

And yet, continuing to use those exceedingly rare occasions where other than firearms (typically with high-capacity magazines) are used to kill more than one person, in one incident, is the distraction and justification used...and which mostly explains why nothing of significance has been accomplished toward the real problem.

The love of firearms and the sense of power/equalization they convey...is very addicting to a lot of people.

I am glad however, that you support more restrictions on car ownership as it relates to DUIs. I guess I missed seeing all of those posts on the topic.......

Conversely, there seems to be a dearth of threads of restrictions on vehicle ownership/operation for any reason (DUI's/age/physical & mental impairments/Etc) and yet when it comes to guns, ANY guns...there seems to often be a visceral defense of them by some folks. :oops:

Start a thread on vehicle restrictions...and I'll be happy to post my views. :thumbup:

Actually I did, it was called "Where is the uproar", related to alcohol related fatalities. It started out well, unfortunately there were some posters who chose to make it about guns so it went off topic. Sound familiar?

Unfortunately guns are a "hot topic", and yes there is a defense of the Second Amendment. People claim that they don't want to take away guns, and I see many posts that reference the need for "common sense gun laws", but no one can give examples of such laws. I know, as I have asked repeatedly for examples. IMO, the issue is that the focus continues to be on the how and not so much as the why-which is where this thread was going, but as usual, gets hijacked away from the why.

The very definition of mass shooting is up for debate but of course like everything else is manipulated for a cause, a bad cause.

One part of a Three part series..

Who Are Mass Shooters? Mass Shooter Demographics | Center for Inquiry

More interesting reading on "mass shootings." At the end there is a lot of information on the definition of "mass."

FACT CHECK: Were None of 154 Mass Shootings in 2018 Committed by a Black Man, Illegal Alien, or Woman?

No, a woman cannot be macho or be a macho.
Any noun in Spanish, that ends in an "o," as an example, is always masculine.

I would call a woman that owns firearms exactly that -- a woman who owns firearms! ;)

The point I made is that the absence of guns did not stop murders. The knife took over as the most efficient method possible and apparently served quite well.

I believe David used a rock with Goliath. Propelled by a slingshot though.

But the presence of a gun can stop quickly someone with a rock or knife. Unless a slingslot or throwing knife is involved.

genesis - How did Cain kill Abel? - Christianity Stack Exchange

Off the subject but can't resist temptation.
Masculine????
Such a characterization would not be allowed/tolerated in our current societal trend/tolerance!!!!!!!!

Crazy is crazy. The world has always had crazies and, sorry to say, always will.

The point I'm making is that our government didn't write legislation to specifically include knives in to laws permitting citizens to arm themselves. A knife is neither permitted nor forbidden, it's a knife. A tool that has MANY functions, only one of which is as a killing weapon, and even that function is secondary to its primary function, which is simply "to cut things".

A semi-automatic firearm's primary function is to kill, and yet it is written in as a permitted weapon. In other words - legislation exists to give murderers permission to possess these weapons. As long as they haven't been caught (yet) and have a clean record, there's really nothing to stop them from LEGALLY possessing these weapons that exist PRIMARILY to kill people (not animals, but people) because the law ALLOWS them to possess them.

Protect and kill goes hand in hand

"because the law ALLOWS them to possess them."
And the Constitution.

Steve

The latest news on the shooter is his behavior had become erratic and that he had been involved in scuffles with coworkers. Virginia Beach Gunman Had Been Facing Disciplinary Action for a 'Violent' Fight on 'City Grounds'

So how can you stop a murderer who hasn't been caught yet from doing in anything a non-murderer is allowed to do??? If they haven't been caught how are you supposed to know they are a murderer? Convicted felons aren't allowed to vote so do we ask a question at the polling place, "Are you a murderer that hasn't been caught" because if you are you can't vote?
We allow child molesters that haven't been caught yet to be around children. Rapists that haven't been caught yet are not listed on a sexual offender list. Alcoholics that haven't been caught yet are allowed to renew their driver's license and to operate a motor vehicle.
Knives have a long history of being used as a tool to kill and before the invention of the gun were the primary killing tool used by armies. Swords are nothing more than a long knife. There is no federal law prohibiting the carrying of a knife but there are states and many municipalities that restrict the type and size of a knife that a person may carry on their person.

In NYC you can only carry a nail file. Oddly the criminals carry whatever they like.

Will NEVER get rid of all the guns, they don’t go off them selves. You can have death sentence on site if caught with gun and there will still be guns. The world supplies USA with guns some legal and some untraceable black market which most big time drug lords, gang members, and crinmals know how to get. As long as there are humans there will be guns. Most law bidding citizens don’t own guns.

:bigbow: and you can’t foresee in most cases or stop it.

I'll add to your last sentence to say.....
most law abiding "people" don't own "illegal" guns.
Steve

We could and should do something about those adjudicated by a competent and unbiased judge as mentally ill and their access to any kind of firearm. My brother-in-law thought my sister-in-law, his sister of course, had been taken over by an alien. And he got two semi-automatic pistols from VA gun show. He had never been found mentally ill though but did take his own like with one of those pistols. The proper checks-and-balances were not in place. This happened around October of 2014 that he took his life but my brother and sister-in-law were quite afraid of him long before that after they kicked him out of their house because he refused to get rid of those two pistols. He did not need them for anything. He lived with them in a very safe neighborhood.

He may have had paranoid psychosis, a friend had some form of it. Such a person needs medical help. Mental illness is exactly like physical illness except we can’t always see it.

No, the constitution doesn't explicitly allow semi-automatic firearms. It allows firearms, as a generic term. The government has the right, and the responsibility to determine which firearms are permitted and which are not. That is why AK-47s are not permitted to be bought or carried by civilians. AR-15 should be returned to the same category. It was in that category, and it was removed from it. And now, the *majority* of mass shootings in this country over the past few years have been commited using the AR-15.

They need to be made harder to acquire. They can't be made impossible to acquire, because there is always an illegal way around anything these days. A single mass shooting prevented by a difficult acquisition process, is lives saved.

I think your arguement is falling on deaf ears.

Those who differ with you have never seen a good friend have his head blown off right in front of him, or held folks with holes in their chest as they died. I have and since that.....wonder why ANYONE would want these weapons in their hands or allow strangers to have them.

I get the ammendment, and as someone who also worked in government, I respect our constitution and totally law and order.

I am also a realist who understand the cries to allow guns. I get it, but the argument is driven by those who the same folks who decry them meaning special interests.

When in government I learned NOTHING beats discussion and listening. Today we have neither.....either IN government or private citizens.

What you suggest would be thought of a a loss, not a compromise,....and would not serve the country or it citizens but "somebody"

If anyone has served and knows of what I speak.....but disagrees on another principal I do understand and hope nothing I said is offensive

It doesn't disallow them either.
"firearms as a "generic" term"? What the heck does that mean?
Steve

I suppose you'll also want to ban the Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle?

Several posts have been removed as directed at member. Please discuss the topic and stop attacking the posters whose opinions differ from yours.

Moderator

A think a visit to the scholarly debates on this might be in order....

One side is that they sale of guns may be regulated...

"• Over the years, the federal courts have been nearly unanimous
that the Second Amendment protects only the collective right of
the states to maintain militias, and not an individual’s right to own
guns; the DC ruling is an exception to the rule."



Of course with the DC ruling the other side says...

"• The DC court‘s decision reflects an emerging scholarly consensus
that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to
keep and bear arms."

There are points on both sides but if you did not even understand why the question, I believe more reading is in line for you

https://constitutioncenter.org/media...guncontrol.pdf

Amendment II - The United States Constitution

The semi-auto version of the AK47 is still available and is being sold every day. I can't find any information supporting your statement that the majority of mass shooting are committed using the AR15. The best I can find is 25-30 percent of mass shootings were done with "assault rifles". The majority is done using a hand gun. As to the term "mass shootings" there is no officially designated number of victims needed to qualify as a mass shooting. Four is a number I've seen that is an unofficial number but depending on whichever organization and their agenda, the number of victims varies and can be as low as two victims. Included in these mass shooting stats are gang shootings of other gang members.
Banning something doesn't make it that difficult for a determined individual to obtain whatever they want. Cocaine, heroin, crack and all the other addictive drugs are available in the smallest towns and even grade school children are able to buy them. It wouldn't surprise me that there may be a few drug dealers here in the villages. When you ban something people want all it does is open up that market to organized crime and they will supply anything you want.

SO, Just cause you’re mentally stable enough don’t me child care raised generations are who play video games all hours of the day and night can’t figure out reality.

You’re right fully automatic AK47s are not allowed without special permits, but there are plenty of knock offs in array of calibers that are not fully automatic, just like the AR15 is not M16. Law does not allow fully automatic assault military weapons without special permit. All other fall in firearm class where it be single shot, pump, lever, bolt, or semi-automatic delivery

In fact, guns have never been more difficult to obtain. We have never in our history had more restrictive or as many gun laws. The fact is that laws don't prevent crimes. Laws define crimes and provide punishment for those that are caught.

Why aren't those calling for more laws restricting guns simply calling for more laws restricting people from killing one another? The answer is that we already have enough laws that prohibit us from murdering one another and more laws won't prevent that.

Laws preventing citizens from owning semi automatic handguns like the ones used in this shooting will only take semi automatics out of the hands of good law abiding people. Unless we got rid of all guns in this country, people will get them illegally. Does anyone believe that feasible to get rid of all guns? Even if we did, does anyone think that guns wouldn't be brought in illegally?

London has banned citizens from owning guns and knife attacks have been on the rise. Now they are considering banning knives. I guess they'll be cutting up their meat pies with a fork.

Laws don't prevent crimes. Fewer guns in the hands of good law abiding citizens will only mean more guns, proportionally in the hands of criminals.

Limiting good law abiding citizens to revolvers will mean that semi autos will only be available on the black market so that only criminals will have them.

More laws are not the answer.

Just for information sake....

"In 2011, the U.K. had 0.07 gun homicides for every 100,000 people; the U.S., by contrast, had 3 gun homicides for every 100,000. In 2009 there were 138 gun deaths in the U.K, where there are 6.7 firearms for every 100 people.

One reason contributing to this is the U.K.'s strict gun laws. According to an English rifle and gun club legal center, any person possessing a firearm in the U.K. must posses a Shotgun Certificate or a Firearm Certificate.

Machine guns, pepper spray, semi-automatic, and pump-action rifles, and any firearm that has a barrel less than 30 centimeters in length are prohibited.

The only firearms that can be owned legally are shotguns, black powder weapons, manually-loaded cartridge pistols and manually-loaded center-fire rifles, all termed "Section 1" firearms.

To gain a firearm certificate, applicants must be over age 14, and must demonstrate they have satisfactory security and "good reason" to own a rifle. Applicants must declare all criminal convictions and name two references to support the application. Applications must be renewed every five years.

The requirements are largely the same for a shotgun certificate, although the applicant doesn't need two references, only one counter-signatory — and there is no minimum age."

These Laws Are The Reason Canada, Australia, Japan And The UK Have Such Low Gun Homicide Rates - Business Insider

These are factual laws. Now, if you wish, visit YOUTUBE, and you will be treated to propaganda insisting the opposite. I have seen then. They are full of half truths, easily debunked if you want.

The toughest gun laws in the USA are in Illinois, How's that working out for Chicago??

Actually Illinois is ranked #9.
But whatever fits the narrative.

10 states with the strictest gun laws | Deseret News



Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Thanks for the link...and facts.

It is refreshing to see them. :thumbup:

Old information, but even if it is #9 today.........say point: Tough gun laws is not helping Chicago shootings.

The topic was NOT Chicago.

Why do people insist on using lies, and for the most part known lies to try to bolster an argument. Same thing on schools....telling lies about Israel. What do people get out of standing behind and supporting lies.

It would greatly irritate me, if I supported a group who told me lies, and assume I am so stupid that I cannot see through them, and then to repeat lies.

What has happened. We used to learn from each other in this world....now we trash and demean others who show the way instead of learning, we tell lies about them

There are valid points to be made......why not use the nes that are true.

Yes.....WE can learn from others, and as we slip in pretty much every international ranking there is, we stand tall and use lies to demean those who are succeeding.

I stay out of this discussion pretty much, but when I read...it's not guns, it's video games, or when I read more lying about others to "support" a position, it's difficult any more to remain silent.

The answers are there.....some just bury their head and refuse to even discuss it. Would it not be great to at least hear open public discussion on the two (I think it's two..at least one) bills already passed by one house and buried never to be discussed or voted on.

Why ?

I simply get frustrated. I read other threads that speak to advice given to children.

Would you, or have you ever told your children....follow and support a total lie, as long as it services you ?

I sure hope not

The topic was the mass workplace shooting in Virginia Beach. As with many of these threads, it has devolved into a gun control discussion with the same players espousing the same arguments.

RIP to the victims in Va. Beach.

Thread closed.