What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

USA Shootings (2 Viewers)

The weapon of choice is part of the problem, yes. Reducing the availability of that weapon will reduce the number of deaths.

(Of course no law can completely eliminate the possibility of someone acquiring such a weapon, nor can any law completely eliminate the concept of murder.)
I submit it will not reduce the number of deaths - not really because there are many many other guns out there that can cause massive deaths too - handguns, shotguns, other rifles ..... you do know that right ?
Of course I am aware that there are other guns in existence.

But I am of the belief that reducing the easy ability to obtain certain weapons will also reduce the easy ability to kill mass numbers of people in a span of 60 seconds.

 
I am a gun owner, NRA member

What I see is valid, honest, usable tools/laws/rules for the future to stop people from doing evil things ......

#1 red flagging. I think if authorities can identify people who are cracking .... they can and should be able to intervene. 

https://miami.cbslocal.com/2019/01/06/florida-stripper-arrested-after-threatening-mass-shooting/

#2 active reporting by civilians - like this. 

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Lubbock-Man-Allegedly-Contemplating-Mass-Shooting-Arrested-514918621.html

I believe arming society in such a way as to stop the people who do want to act is also needed. School shootings are plummeting - because schools are arming themsleves.They're not weak anymore

Walmart stores ... they're weak in security. 

Remember - guns are what STOPPED these shooters too. 
More Guns!  More guns solves the gun problem.  Makes total sense.  

 
Mile High - what would have stopped the El Paso and Dayton killers. What law or rule or regulation would have stopped them from trying to kill a bunch of people. I'm listening 


ok great

neither of those stops people like these mass killers, the above MIGHT stop crimes of passion type shootings, I'll grant you that however again, its a suggestion and really wouldn't stop anyone because if they want to,  use a knife of shotgun etc right ?

So neither suggestion would REALLY stop anyone 
This is equivalent to throwing your hands in the air and saying, "I give up!"  No laws are going to reduce the number of mass shootings today or tomorrow, but what about 5, 10, 20 years from now?  No, that will not completely stop determined individuals that have been stoking a fire for a while, but it might stop a few spur of the moment kids.  What is wrong with that?

How about we try to reduce the number of incidents and fatalities/injuries by 50% over the next 10 years?  Would that not be worth it?

How about we try to reduce the current efficiency at which people can be gunned down?  When people bring up magazine capacity restrictions the common counter argument is always, "The bad guys will just carry more magazines and they can be changed quickly."  To me that is a vote FOR magazine capacity restrictions.  The argument makes them seem unnecessary.  Is that going to slow down a true radical that has practiced changing magazines under stressful conditions?  A little, but it is going to greatly slow down that kid who is ####ting his pants trying trying to figure out which was is up and finding out they make reloading look a lot easier in video games.  Is that a bad thing?

You can't hunt ducks with a shotgun that can hold more than 3 shells.  It has to be plugged to restrict the capacity.  The law down not care that it can hold 5 but you only currently have it loaded with 3 shells.  If it is not plugged and capable of holding more than 3 it is a violation.  Think about that.  Magazine restrictions for duck hunting, but not weapons chosen to carry out mass shootings.

1 death is too many, but what is up with the "we can't stop them all so why try to stop any" thinking?    That is just odd to me.  I would love to say these can all be stopped tomorrow, but we need to be looking at a long term solution, even if it just reducing the frequency and number of casualties.  When states started adopting seat belt laws there were many "Meh, I've been driving 40 years without a seat belt."  Are there people that still don't wear their seat belts?  Yep, but I guarantee the rate of usage has increased drastically over the last 40 years.

 
Another aspect of El Paso is that as I understand it it is one of the most border friendly places in America. The people on both sides have a long history of traveling back and forth, shopping on both sides, doing business on both sides, eating and drinking and visiting on both sides, even dating and marrying on both sides. The jihadi mindset finds this kind of cross-interaction unbearable between religions and areas, and it wouldn't surprise me if it was just this kind of attitude and behavior that this SOB was lashing out against.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have a feeling this guy saved himself and surrendered to turn himself into a martyr and use the judicial process and media as a platform for his sick ideology. I hope they crush him like they did Roof, but if he goes through with a trial watch out.

 
yes but you did NOT stop the shooters with the ban of assault weapons

if your family members were the other dead bodies .... then how would you feel ?

again I ask - what laws or regulations can be passed right now to STOP these people from trying to kill other people ? 
No law has 100% effectiveness of its target.  Heck, despite laws against even disseminating information on how to do it, some 14-year old high school student made yellow cake uranium and built a nuclear reactor in Michigan several years ago and got a visit from the feds. 

 
It is getting harder to keep up with them, isn't it?
Crazy work week for me, I do remember it now. 

I’m not a gun guy, I don’t see any use for civilians to have automatic weapons like this. What’s the solution that works for both sides, I’m open to it? 

It definitely won’t make these events go away but I just don’t see the logic of anyone needing a machine gun cause they hunt. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
No law has 100% effectiveness of its target.  Heck, despite laws against even disseminating information on how to do it, some 14-year old high school student made yellow cake uranium and built a nuclear reactor in Michigan several years ago and got a visit from the feds. 
Geez. What a complete waste of time and effort it was to pass those laws. 

 
25 sounds like a starting point. At least until we can figure out what is going on with kids today.
The genesis in so many of these sort of tragedies is rooted in their upbringing IMO.

So difficult to legislate that.

Since the early 70s I've seen a consistent erosion in the value of human life in most every facet of our society.

We treat and put animals ahead of humans oftentimes.

We don't look out for each other, let alone our families like we used to.

We've lost a healthy respect for authority, beginning with our parents.

And with the internet, we hear about EVERYTHING.

I seriously doubt that there's an easy flip of the switch to minimize these type of incidents (the 10 year federal assault weapons ban had close -to-zero effect on them).

We all, ALL want a quick and effective answer to this horrid acts.

I'm afraid it took decades to get to this place, and it will most likely take the same time or more to correct our course.

Sorry for the rant; this comes from the heart of a guy who wishes he had the answer and that it was immediate.

Flame away guys..  

 
Crazy work week for me, I do remember it now. 

I’m not a gun guy, I don’t see any use for civilians to have automatic weapons like this. What’s the solution that works for both sides, I’m open to it? 

It definitely won’t make these events go away but I just don’t see the logic of anyone needing a machine gun cause they hunt. 
Imo you have to put the goal posts miles away for the diehard NRA people to agree to anything. Or even reluctantly accept anything.

I'd propose to limit selling current semi auto weapons to the next 10 years. After that semi auto weapons can only be passed down through family lines. 

Have the govt offer a buy back program at 5x market price to continue to voluntarily reduce the amount of weapons available. 

Revolver, bolt action and shotguns can still be purchased.

I dont think this will stop mass shootings, but it cant hurt and seems reasonable enough to me.

 
Crazy work week for me, I do remember it now. 

I’m not a gun guy, I don’t see any use for civilians to have automatic weapons like this. What’s the solution that works for both sides, I’m open to it? 

It definitely won’t make these events go away but I just don’t see the logic of anyone needing a machine gun cause they hunt. 
Some say a new version of the old assault weapons ban is the solution. Personally, I don't think it is enough. While there was a dip in the mass shooting growth during the 1994 to 2004 assault weapons ban, the growth in mass shootings was still present even during that time.

I don't think anything is effective until we can regulate gun ownership the same way we regulate vehicular driving. But we can't do that with the existing 2nd amendment interpretation. The 2nd would either have to have a reinterpretation by the judicial system, or the states will have to amend the 2nd. Then we can have gun ownership require training, testing, licensing, etc.... The testing would include mental health questions. If the answers to questions trigger warnings, then the person could get evaluated by mental health doctors if they still want to pursue gun ownership. The tests could also include extremist questions. I'm not sure how to escalate trigger warnings for extremism so that the testee isn't falsely identified without any recourse, but I'm sure if we pursued this kind of regulation and testing we could find something suitable. Problem is, it's a waste of time to pursue this with the current interpretation of the 2nd, because anyone who has not been identified with mental health conditions or extremist beliefs as a 2nd amendment right to buy arms without government interference.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
My apologies I’m regards to the knife thing then, I think it was at the top of the page and I failed to look back. I also apologize because I’m angry and I think some of that was directed at you, who posts a lot in defense of guns. I’m tired of the same talking points, misdirection, etc, even if it’s a relatable topic to the issue. You have often pointed a finger saying “if you care so much about life saving why aren’t you so worked up about duis?” or something to that effect. Well today is today, and you aren’t bringing it up, and it’s probably because it’s a poor argument a day after 30 people were killed. We need to make changes, and yes it will likely affect law abiding citizens. It’s worth the pain in your ###, to me. I don’t know what those changes should be, and it’s not my job to come up with those solutions, and I wish I could answer how to effectively do this with as little impact to law abiding people as possible. 
No worries. We are all angry about what is happening. We just show it different ways. I compartmentalize my emotions, so it may come across that I don't care. That's not the case. Everything discussed on this board from "thoughts and prayers" to "ban all guns" makes zero difference in the scope of ending these shootings. It's discussion. It's venting. It's trying to find common ground. That's it. At the end of the day, if every poster here was 100% in agreement that we should ban all guns or agreed 100% that we should do nothing, it wouldn't matter. Change is only going to happen when people do something different. Whether that's you or I becoming active, protesting, reaching out to our reps, or people learning to deal with their issues in a non violent way, or action by those that can change the laws. As I mentioned, I don't support the NRA or Trump, yet there are quite a few people here that see me as a target for their anger. Changing my opinion won't change the laws. 

 
Some say a new version of the old assault weapons ban is the solution. Personally, I don't think it is enough. While there was a dip in the mass shooting growth during the 1994 to 2004 assault weapons ban, the growth in mass shootings was still present even during that time.

I don't think anything is effective until we can regulate gun ownership the same way we regulate vehicular driving. But we can't do that with the existing 2nd amendment interpretation. The 2nd would either have have a reinterpretation by the judicial system, or the states will have to amend the 2nd. Then we can have gun ownership require training, testing, licensing, etc.... The testing would include mental health questions. If the answers to questions trigger warnings, then the person could get evaluated by mental health doctors if they still want to pursue gun ownership. The tests could also include extremist questions. I'm not sure how to escalate trigger warnings for extremism so that the testee isn't falsely identified without any recourse, but I'm sure if we pursued this kind of regulation and testing we could find something suitable. Problem is, it's a waste of time to pursue this with the current interpretation of the 2nd, because anyone who has not been identified with mental health conditions or extremist beliefs as a 2nd amendment right to buy arms without government interference.  
I’m all for something like this. As mentioned in another thread though to get it done the left will have to offer up some as a compromise cause we are dealing with politicians here and it’s probably the reality. Perfect scenario in my mind is something like you mention on guns and the Left gets over fighting border security just because no wall = political points for them and an agreement is reached on both that’s reasonable and both sides save face. Will never happen but we can dream right? :suds:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Responsible gun owners should be at the absolute forefront of trying to do something and come up with solutions.  I disagree with @[icon] on some things, but he is trying to do something.  Are you?
I agree with this. As a gun owner, we have the most to lose with gun regulation. With each shooting, it's becoming more and more difficult to discuss regulations that don't overstep.

 
Single men who have never had a girlfriend are banned from buying guns. A common thread between the alt right and these shooters is they are all complete losers in real life.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The courageous thing to do would be for the President to speak to the country tonight

Show some leadership
Denounce White Nationalist Terrorists
Direct the FBI to bring these guys down
Tell Mitch McConnell to bring up for a vote the 2 gun regulation bills being stalled in committee

Will it happen? Probably not 

 
The courageous thing to do would be for the President to speak to the country tonight

Show some leadership
Denounce White Nationalist Terrorists
Direct the FBI to bring these guys down
Tell Mitch McConnell to bring up for a vote the 2 gun regulation bills being stalled in committee

Will it happen? Probably not 
Lol @ "probably"....

Plenty of good people on the White Supremecy side, man.  Our dear leader told us so.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top