Another school shooting sigh Edit - looks like more than school (1 Viewer)

[Epic Problem]

The debate that the ar-15 is the end all for every crime is just stupid.   

The idea that you think anyone even remotely suggested this is just stupid.

And good luck taking out those stationary paper targets. I hear they put up one hell of a resistance. 

 

[OrtonToOlsen]

Okay then i disagree with you.  Give me a glock 17 or an AR-15 with a room full targets (actual paper targets please) and you will have the same result.  I will hit each target multiple times at roughly the same rate. The debate that the ar-15 is the end all for every crime is just stupid.   

Nobody has said that.

 

[KCitons]

Does that include a ban on all hunting firearms? Are we then banning all hunting as a biproduct? Do you have alternative plan for controlling herd population? People will die from deer/vehicle collisions as a result. 

 

[Limp Ditka]

Does that include a ban on all hunting firearms? Are we then banning all hunting as a biproduct? Do you have alternative plan for controlling herd population? People will die from deer/vehicle collisions as a result. 

 

 

[KCitons]

 

Do you have plans to offset the income lost from hunters through banning all firearms?

 

[tommyGunZ]

The only way to do it is to ban the ownership and sale of all guns and ammo except for those issued to the military and law enforcement.  It'll take generations to get them out of circulation, but the alternative is to have more innocent people die needlessly just because some people have a hobby.

This is exactly right.  It will take decades, but eventually we can get rid of the guns already in circulation.  The sooner we start the better.  

 

[EYLive]

Does that include a ban on all hunting firearms? Are we then banning all hunting as a biproduct? Do you have alternative plan for controlling herd population? People will die from deer/vehicle collisions as a result. 

No ban on compound bows and crossbows.

 

[KCitons]

No ban on compound bows and crossbows.

Pheasant and duck hunting will be interesting.

 

[Epic Problem]

No ban on compound bows and crossbows.

Is this where sbomono comes in and tells us that he could kill just as many paper deers in 10 minutes with his crossbow as he could with his Remington 783?

 

[Politician Spock]

Does that include a ban on all hunting firearms?  

Guns? Yes.

Are we then banning all hunting as a biproduct? 

All hunting? No. You can still hunt... just not with a gun.

Do you have alternative plan for controlling herd population? People will die from deer/vehicle collisions as a result. 

People are more likely to survive a deer collision than they are an encounter with a nutjob and a gun. I find the argument that we need to keep guns legal because deer collisions will increase to be ridiculous. 

 

[top dog]

I found this interesting... 2 of the weapons he used were manufactured at home?  What exactly does that mean?

Authorities this week said that Neal was armed with one semiautomatic assault-style rifle and two handguns and that a second rifle was later discovered during a search.

He did not legally own any of the guns, Johnston said. The two rifles were “manufactured illegally by him in his home” and unregistered, and the pistols were registered to another person, he said.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-tehama-county-shooting-tic-toc-20171116-story.html

 

[Politician Spock]

Pheasant and duck hunting will be interesting.

Well crap! Car collisions with pheasants and ducks will increase. Guess this gun ban idea is bad idea. 

 

[Hawkeye21]

Well crap! Car collisions with pheasants and ducks will increase. Guess this gun ban idea is bad idea. 

Animal populations are not going to affect traffic deaths enough to make it a big deal but there could be bigger ramifications from the increase.  You're talking about messing with entire animal ecosystems.  There are other ways to control animal populations other than with guns though but it will be more costly as there wouldn't be any income from hunters.  I can't imagine Trump would fund anything like that.

 

[Politician Spock]

Animal populations are not going to affect traffic deaths enough to make it a big deal but there could be bigger ramifications from the increase.  You're talking about messing with entire animal ecosystems.  There are other ways to control animal populations other than with guns though but it will be more costly as there wouldn't be any income from hunters.  I can't imagine Trump would fund anything like that.

We could just breed more wolves into the ecosystem: https://www.yellowstonepark.com/things-to-do/wolf-reintroduction-changes-ecosystem

 

[KCitons]

Well crap! Car collisions with pheasants and ducks will increase. Guess this gun ban idea is bad idea. 

It will never happen. Too many people have a vested interest tied to guns in this country. Hunters that weren't members of the NRA will soon become members because people like yourself are not looking for compromise, but quick, sweeping seizure of guns. 

 

[Politician Spock]

It will never happen. Too many people have a vested interest tied to guns in this country. Hunters that weren't members of the NRA will soon become members because people like yourself are not looking for compromise, but quick, sweeping seizure of guns. 

All four of them have me gravely concerned. 

 

[KCitons]

Animal populations are not going to affect traffic deaths enough to make it a big deal but there could be bigger ramifications from the increase.  You're talking about messing with entire animal ecosystems.  There are other ways to control animal populations other than with guns though but it will be more costly as there wouldn't be any income from hunters.  I can't imagine Trump would fund anything like that.

People underestimate the revenue generated by big game permits and hunting licenses. 

People complain about coyotes attacking pets. It will get worse.

 

[KCitons]

All four of them have me gravely concerned. 

And this is why you will be very unhappy for a long time. You underestimate way too much in your quest to ban guns. 

 

[Hawkeye21]

There would be loss of revenue from hunting license.  Numerous businesses would have to close down.  If animal populations get out of control then things could get really messy especially with crops.  There could be a huge domino effect.

 

[Politician Spock]

And this is why you will be very unhappy for a long time. You underestimate way too much in your quest to ban guns. 

And you underestimate just how much the 68% of homes in this country that don't own guns are getting sick of these mass shooting incidents. As they get more and more frequent, the wave of discontent will eventually grow so large, it would be like the NRA trying to stop an ocean wave with surfboard. 

 

[Black Box]

We're going to ban hunting with guns now? Good grief.

 

[Hawkeye21]

And you underestimate just how much the 68% of homes in this country that don't own guns are getting sick of these mass shooting incidents. As they get more and more frequent, the wave of discontent will eventually grow so large, it would be like the NRA trying to stop an ocean wave with surfboard. 

Before anyone does anything there would need to be some studies done.  There would need to be something to replace hunting and continue animal conservation.  I don't think you can just do something like that instantly without there being major issues.

 

[Politician Spock]

Before anyone does anything there would need to be some studies done.  There would need to be something to replace hunting and continue animal conservation.  I don't think you can just do something like that instantly without there being major issues.

No one is banning hunting.

Many Native Americans lived on hunting buffalo for centuries.... and never used a gun until Kevin Costner showed up.

 

[Hawkeye21]

No one is banning hunting.

Many Native Americans lived on hunting buffalo for centuries.... and never used a gun until Kevin Costner showed up.

No one ever said anything about banning hunting but if guns were no longer allowed then hunting would almost disappear.  It would affect it drastically.

 

[Politician Spock]

No one ever said anything about banning hunting but if guns were no longer allowed then hunting would almost disappear.  It would affect it drastically.

If you're correct, then that shows how much of it is simply done for sport. While retailers who service the sport would be affected, retail has experienced far bigger issues. And people who give up one sport likely pick up another, so some other retailers stand to gain. In the end, the economic impact is likely a wash.

As for the ecosystem, yes a loss of a link in the food chain results in changes to the ecosystem. But we're talking about a sport where many hunters had to get a license to hunt in order to limit the number of game they caught because their presence in the ecosystem was so great that it was potentially causing extinction. This "sport" could use a reduction in participants in regards to ecosystem health. It would probably reduce participation to a point where the cost of regulating it isn't even necessary burden for tax payers anymore. Those who hunt could catch as much game as they want. 

 

[Hawkeye21]

If you're correct, then that shows how much of it is simply done for sport. While retailers who service the sport would be affected, retail has experienced far bigger issues. And people who give up one sport likely pick up another, so some other retailers stand to gain. In the end, the economic impact is likely a wash.

As for the ecosystem, yes a loss of a link in the food chain results in changes to the ecosystem. But we're talking about a sport where many hunters had to get a license to hunt in order to limit the number of game they caught because their presence in the ecosystem was so great that it was potentially causing extinction. This "sport" could use a reduction in participants in regards to ecosystem health. It would probably reduce participation to a point where the cost of regulating it isn't even necessary burden for tax payers anymore. Those who hunt could catch as much game as they want. 

Of course the majority of hunters are doing it for sport.  That's not a mystery.  Just because they do it for sport does not mean that they are not using all of the meat they harvest from these animals and the meat they do not need usually gets donated to families that need food.

As for the economic impact I wasn't even considering it that much.  I was thinking more about the funding that is made from the sale of hunting licenses, guns, ammo and anything else that goes towards conservation.  It would be a major loss and they would not be able to get that money from anything else because we know Trump would never fund it.

There are many areas where there are not enough hunters to get the limits of deer needed to control the population.  There have been years when the DNR had to hire people to kill more deer.  Like I said before, there would need to be some studies done before it's just stopped.

 

[[icon]]

Its unfortunate when people who know nothing about something try to make assumptions about it, and then pass laws based on uneducated assumptions while being ignorant of the primary and secondary impacts. 

 

 

[Politician Spock]

Of course the majority of hunters are doing it for sport.  That's not a mystery.  Just because they do it for sport does not mean that they are not using all of the meat they harvest from these animals and the meat they do not need usually gets donated to families that need food.

As for the economic impact I wasn't even considering it that much.  I was thinking more about the funding that is made from the sale of hunting licenses, guns, ammo and anything else that goes towards conservation.  It would be a major loss and they would not be able to get that money from anything else because we know Trump would never fund it.

There are many areas where there are not enough hunters to get the limits of deer needed to control the population.  There have been years when the DNR had to hire people to kill more deer.  Like I said before, there would need to be some studies done before it's just stopped.

This tells me there is a commercial opportunity, one that would increase in size with the drop in hunting participation. As those commercial opportunities are filled by entrepreneurs pursuing profit, tax that profit to offset the loss of funding that goes towards conservation.

And go ahead and do those studies. But if it means delaying the solution, then the lives being lost to this problem mean less to you than the issues you're talking about. If the gun industry is so concerned about the effect to the ecosystem if hunting declined, why haven't they done those studies already?

 

[Hawkeye21]

This tells me there is a commercial opportunity, one that would increase in size with the drop in hunting participation. As those commercial opportunities are filled by entrepreneurs pursuing profit, tax that profit to offset the loss of funding that goes towards conservation.

And go ahead and do those studies. But if it means delaying the solution, then the lives being lost to this problem mean less to you than the issues you're talking about. If the gun industry is so concerned about the effect to the ecosystem if hunting declined, why haven't they done those studies already?

I'm not sold on the fact that gun control is going to solve anything yet.  I think it could but I don't think there is any guarantee.  I certainly don't think banning all guns is the answer and actually think it would make things worse.

 

[Politician Spock]

I'm not sold on the fact that gun control is going to solve anything yet.  I think it could but I don't think there is any guarantee.  I certainly don't think banning all guns is the answer and actually think it would make things worse.

How much more frequent do the shootings have to become for you? We're already at weekly. Will you be sold when they are daily? Will you be sold when they are hourly? Will you be sold when we can't go two minutes without one?

Or is this simply something that you're unwilling to let go of for any reason?

 

[Hawkeye21]

How much more frequent do the shootings have to become for you? We're already at weekly. Will you be sold when they are daily? Will you be sold when they are hourly? Will you be sold when we can't go two minutes without one?

Or is this simply something that you're unwilling to let go of for any reason?

I don't have an answer for that yet.  What happens if mass killings do not drastically drop after all guns are banned?  What if the people who want to kill find another way to do it, do we ban whatever they used for that?  What if an entire black market for gun manufacturing happens and the people who want to kill still get their hands on guns?

I know these are just hypothetical but it's possible.  Are we going to be able to go back to having guns sales again? 

 

[Politician Spock]

I don't have an answer for that yet.  What happens if mass killings do not drastically drop after all guns are banned?  What if the people who want to kill find another way to do it, do we ban whatever they used for that?  What if an entire black market for gun manufacturing happens and the people who want to kill still get their hands on guns?

I know these are just hypothetical but it's possible.  Are we going to be able to go back to having guns sales again? 

There is a term for these hypotheticals. They're called red herrings. 

 

[Hawkeye21]

There is a term for these hypotheticals. They're called red herrings. 

And banning all guns could hypothetically stop mass shootings.

I honestly do think it would lower shootings but I'm not sure what the other effects would be yet.  I don't know if it's the overall best solution yet.  I think there are other solutions but we haven't figured it out yet.

 

[[icon]]

Still not sure why the Gun Grabbers continue to ignore concessions from 2nd amendment advocates including:

• willingness to go to near universal background checks
• eliminating rapid-fire enhancements like the bumpfire stocks 
• Eliminating actual high-capacity magazines (over the universal standard 30rds)
• Pushing for legal mandate for all military and state governments to comply fully with NICS records submission to fix background checks (may have stopped 2 recent spree shootings).
• Mandate "lock down" equipment/protocols for all schools receiving federal aid (all) and provide subsidies to help implement them. 

All those steps are very easy to accomplish, quantifiable, and would go a LARGE step int he right direction. They're actually addressing real world issues while not infringing on the 2nd amendment rights of the tens if not hundred million law abiding gun owners.

Yet somehow some folks in here are whining about 2A Advocates as being the obstinate ones?   When someone offers you a large slice of pie... don't demand you get the whole thing, or they're going to retract the offer for the slice and you'll end up with noting. Stop wasting efforts on something that simply isn't going to happen... let's focus on efforts on specific real world fixes that are achievable now. 

 

[Politician Spock]

And banning all guns could hypothetically stop mass shootings.

I honestly do think it would lower shootings but I'm not sure what the other effects would be yet.  I don't know if it's the overall best solution yet.  I think there are other solutions but we haven't figured it out yet.

How long do we wait for this theoretical better solution?

And this reminds me of a scene from Christmas Vacation:

Clark: “How can they have nothing for their children?”

Ellen: “Well, he’s been out of work for close to seven years.”

Clark: “In seven years, he couldn’t find a job?”

Ellen: “Catherine says he’s been holding out for a management position.”

I'm going to call you Cousin Eddie from now on. 

 

[Hawkeye21]

How long do we wait for this theoretical better solution?

And this reminds me of a scene from Christmas Vacation:

I'm going to call you Cousin Eddie from now on. 

Don't be an ###.

 

[Politician Spock]

Still not sure why the Gun Grabbers continue to ignore concessions from 2nd amendment advocates including:
• willingness to go to near universal background checks
• eliminating rapid-fire enhancements like the bumpfire stocks 
• Eliminating actual high-capacity magazines (over the universal standard 30rds)
• Pushing for legal mandate for all military and state governments to comply fully with NICS recordrs submission to fix background checks. 
• Mandate "lock down" equipment/protocols for all schools receiving federal aid (all) and provide subsidies to help implement them. 

All those steps are very easy to accomplish, quantifiable, and would go a LARGE step int he right direction. They're actually addressing real world issues while not infringing on the 2nd amendment rights of the tens if not hundred million law abiding gun owners.

Yet somehow some folks in here are whining about 2A Advocates as being the obstinate ones?   When someone offers you a large slice of pie... don't demand you get the whole thing, or they're going to retract the offer for the slice and you'll end up with noting. Stop wasting efforts on something that simply isn't going to happen... let's focus on efforts on specific real world fixes that are achievable now. 

The NRA has agreed to none of these things. Their history of compromising is non-existent. 

The gun owners have had decades to compromise, but you can thank the NRA for it not happening. 

 

[Politician Spock]

Don't be an ###.

How long do we wait for this theoretical better solution?

 

[[icon]]

The NRA has agreed to none of these things. Their history of compromising is non-existent. 

The gun owners have had decades to compromise, but you can thank the NRA for it not happening. 

The NRA is already openly stated they're down with 2 and is a key driving force behind 4.

Just because you don't know the facts doesn't make them any less of a fact. 

 

[Hawkeye21]

How long do we wait for this theoretical better solution?

I don't know.  I want to work towards finding a solution too but I don't find your way to be the best way.  Sorry I don't like your solution.  You don't know if your way is the right way, it's just an idea.  Could it work, sure it could.  Could it cause bigger problems, yes.

 

[Politician Spock]

The NRA is already openly stated they're down with 2 and is a key driving force behind 4.

Just because you don't know the facts doesn't make them any less of a fact. 

You mean the same NRA that has a history of after laws are passed, does everything it can to make sure they're not enforced? That NRA?

 

[Politician Spock]

I don't know.  I want to work towards finding a solution too but I don't find your way to be the best way.  Sorry I don't like your solution.  You don't know if your way is the right way, it's just an idea.  Could it work, sure it could.  Could it cause bigger problems, yes.

I appreciate that you don't like the solution, but not having a better solution is a poor reason to do nothing. 

 

[Hawkeye21]

I appreciate that you don't like the solution, but not having a better solution is a poor reason to do nothing. 

I didn't say nothing should be done.  I'm for coming up with gun laws, just not banning all guns.  I think banning all guns would cause more problems.

 

[Hawkeye21]

Don't forget that before guns can be banned the Constitution would have to be amended.

 

[Politician Spock]

I didn't say nothing should be done.  I'm for coming up with gun laws, just not banning all guns.  I think banning all guns would cause more problems.

We already have gun laws. The problem isn't that we don't have laws. The problem is Americans own too many of them. Americans own 48% of all guns in existence in the world, yet we are only 4% of the world population.

More gun laws aren't going to make a dent in that problem. And while that problem exists at the scale that it does, the mass shootings will continue to increase at the rate it's currently increasing, because no country can have enough laws to protect 4% of the population from 48% of the guns. 

 

[Hawkeye21]

We already have gun laws. The problem isn't that we don't have laws. The problem is Americans own too many of them. Americans own 48% of all guns in existence in the world, yet we are only 4% of the world population.

More gun laws aren't going to make a dent in that problem. And while that problem exists at the scale that it does, the mass shootings will continue to increase at the rate it's currently increasing, because no country can have enough laws to protect 4% of the population from 48% of the guns. 

Of course we have more guns, we're a free country, not a dictatorship.

What do you honestly think would happen if the government decided to ban all guns and seize all guns in the US?

 

[Politician Spock]

Of course we have more guns, we're a free country, not a dictatorship.

What do you honestly think would happen if the government decided to ban all guns and seize all guns in the US?

Do you think the US is the only non-dicatorship in the world?

When guns are banned the majority of the 32% of households that own them will be pissed. In democracies, the losing minority is never happy. Those that didn't want Trump went nuts. Those that didn't want Obama went nuts. Those that didn't want Bush went  nuts. Those that didn't want Clinton went nuts. But yet society never collapses like the minority that lost says it will. 

 

[Black Box]

For the guys wanting to ban all guns, do you know that in the state of PA, you can go hunting with a modern flintlock rifle? Or even with a modern muzzleloader? You want to include those in the ban too?

Or how about a shotgun that you have to open the breech to reload? Those too?

I mean, are we really talking about all guns or just some guns drawn at some hypothetical line? Because these types of guns seem like they would do less damage than a knife in a crowded room.

 

[[icon]]

You mean the same NRA that has a history of after laws are passed, does everything it can to make sure they're not enforced? That NRA?

Annnnd this whiny mentality is why nothing will get done on this issue. 

I'm out... good luck talking in circles and never getting anything done.  

 

[Hawkeye21]

Do you think the US is the only non-dicatorship in the world?

When guns are banned the majority of the 32% of households that own them will be pissed. In democracies, the losing minority is never happy. Those that didn't want Trump went nuts. Those that didn't want Obama went nuts. Those that didn't want Bush went  nuts. Those that didn't want Clinton went nuts. But yet society never collapses like the minority that loss says it will. 

We're not talking about who we wanted as President.  This is much, much bigger than that.  There is a percentage of those gun owners who are not just going to hand over their guns.  You're going to see a lot of people now labeled as criminals now that it's illegal to own them.  You'll most likely see more violence for a time as some fight to keep their guns.  You'll also still have the black market for guns and that's going to become very dangerous as guns become more valuable.

As much as I am against it I would hand over my guns because I don't want to go to jail but I would not be happy about it. I also would not feel as safe without having a gun but that's just my own feeling.  I know it's unlikely I would ever need it for that purpose but I still like knowing I have it, just like insurance.