Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, timschochet said:

Let’s discuss the politics of this for a moment. 
 

Basically there are two main proposals being pushed by the Democrats: universal background checks and banning assault rifles. Both of these ideas, IMO, are huge winners for the Democrats, and huge losers for Republicans. Every poll suggests that the vast majority of Americans, including a plurality of Republicans, are in favor of both proposals. I realize that is not representative of the conservatives who have posted here in opposition, but their position is decidedly in the minority. 
Democrats probably won’t get their way for now (depends on what they do about the filibuster) but just pushing the issue will help them win votes. 

Can you explain to me what an assault rifle is?

also, I bought five pistols and a shotgun and every single time I had a background check.  So universal background checks are already here.

Also, last point, I don't think you know what minority means.

Edited by BladeRunner
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Wow. A bunch of people die from a madman with a gun, but hey, it's only about the same amount that have died from lightning, so no biggie holy ####

Mass shootings affect a far larger number of people than just those that are actually injured and killed. It traumatizes everyone present. It traumatizes first responders who are involved. It traumati

1 hour ago you were posting this.   Had to get that zinger in there first, then post a shot at me, but yeah turn it on me and make it seem like I don't care about people losing their lives.  It's a gi

37 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

Can you explain to me what an assault rifle is?

also, I bought five pistols and a shotgun and every single time I had a background check.  So universal background checks are already here.

Also, last point, I don't think you know what minority means.

1. In terms of the politics of the issue, which I referenced, it doesn’t matter. 
 

2.Universal background checks are not here. There are none required for private sales or transfers. That’s why gun shows are so popular; because you can go to one and purchase a gun from a private dealer without a background check. That’s a loophole that universal background checks would eliminate. 
 

3. Currently 90% of the public are in favor of universal background checks. The 10% people who are opposed, they’re the minority. When you’re going to be outvoted 9-1, that’s what being a minority means. So yeah I think I got it. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, [icon] said:

It's a horrible situation, and certainly falls into my push for more resources dedicated to mental health. 

While suicide is a tragic phenomenon... I'll risk sounding callous by saying someone else's deeply personal decision to end their own life in no way, shape, or form should inhibit my freedom/rights. I can't be any more firm on that stance. 

While I agree in certain situations (terminal illness/suffering), you are assuming one’s choice to end their life is made when the capacity to make such a decision isn’t impaired. That often isn’t the case. 

Read the link I posted above. Suicide is frequently an impulsive decision, and those who fail in their attempt usually regret it. Moreover, failed attempts are infrequently followed by completed suicides. Unlike many other common methods, firearms usually result in death the  first time.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, [icon] said:

Handguns are the primary force equalizer for self defense outside the home.

 

 

Radical leftists are changing the language and burning books. That's usually a precursor to eventually "cleansing" the dissenters.

I would prefer not to give up my handguns. However would I trade them to keep my MBRs? Yes, I would.

Without a trade of some kind, radical leftists, who have already invaded our political structures and strongholds, will attempt to take all our long guns. Including all of your AR-15s and AK variants. They'll send their jackboots to do it. But not just jackboots, but some regular rank and file law enforcement. Some LEO's won't comply. Some will face losing their jobs ( and the ability towards feeding their kids ) if they don't.

I have no problem fighting the good fight, however I will not see the reason and purpose in risking firefights with LEOs. Because that  is exactly what will happen. And after the first few have their stories go viral in the mass media, which is what the radical leftists power brokers want, it's all the justification they need in public to start lining us Conservatives/Republicans up against a wall and start executing us.

The general public will be sated with the removal of handguns. That fits the narrative and optics in the Court Of Public Opinion that the radical left can't actually control.

You'll say it's not fair, I'll say I agree it's not fair. But the end pathway otherwise looks grim to horrible for gun owners otherwise.

You'll say this is where we should make our stand. I'll say it's not the right issue and not the right time and place.

It's something the radical left won't expect and can't control and it ends all other 2A conflicts with the general public. The odds of all Pro 2A eventually being cuffed and hooded and disappearing is a lot higher than any gun owner getting into a self defense scenario in a grocery store parking lot.

You'll lose your Glock, but you'll gain your pure military grade M16A4. It's not surrender, it's a trade.  It's a trade that will sell to the majority of the non gun owning public.

As for something actually pistol sized, I think it's high time Pro 2A seriously begins to look at Less Than Lethal options, like the Byrna pistol, as a functional alternative. Further development and market demand can eventually make something even better.  It's not the same, but if it's a way to keep hassle free long term use of MBR's, then I'd say do it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Zow said:

I'm definitely with you on the bold and find the suggestion that restrictions on guns because it increases the chance of suicide is not a rational/legitimate basis. If it was, then Stealthy's otherwise weak argument of comparing guns to cigarettes would actually carrysome weight. 

Can you expound on this a bit for me?

IMO, assault weapon bans will have minimal impact on gun deaths, including mass shootings. While I think the argument for their legality is pretty weak, gun regulation targeting suicides (expanded mental health evaluation and longer waiting periods, for example) would be a much better method of harm reduction.

  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, GordonGekko said:

Radical leftists are changing the language and burning books. That's usually a precursor to eventually "cleansing" the dissenters.

People on the left are burning books now? Must have missed that in the news.Where and when did this happen and was it done by anyone I have heard of? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Terminalxylem said:

Can you expound on this a bit for me?

IMO, assault weapon bans will have minimal impact on gun deaths, including mass shootings. While I think the argument for their legality is pretty weak, gun regulation targeting suicides (expanded mental health evaluation and longer waiting periods, for example) would be a much better method of harm reduction.

Sure. For me it ties in to the analysis of whether there is a potential direct and physical harm to others.* While this may sound cold and may be dismissive of mental illness or the like, suicide is still nonetheless an act that physically impacts the person engaging in the act. This is similar to smoking, eating bad foods, doing drugs, etc. Accordingly, to maintain consistency with my philosophy, we should not be seeking as a basis to curtail something solely because somebody may inflict harm on himself as a result. Accordingly, to maintain consistency in my distinguishing gun control from other things such as smoking/drugs/bad food, I believe we should focus on the possible physical detrimental impact to others (e.g. mass shootings).

 

* I recognize that the act of suicide will harshly emotionally impact others. I find the situations tragic and I emphathize greatly with the victim's loved ones. However, I don't believe such should factor into gun control.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, GordonGekko said:

 

Radical leftists are changing the language and burning books. That's usually a precursor to eventually "cleansing" the dissenters.

 

Please tell me this isn't about Dr. Seuss...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, squistion said:

People on the left are burning books now? Must have missed that in the news.Where and when did this happen and was it done by anyone I have heard of? 

Must not have been on your Twitter feed.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/leftist-protesters-burn-bibles-american-flags-in-portland-as-riots-continue

Edited by ekbeats
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, ekbeats said:

That is really impressive. An article from that esteemed website, The Christian Research Network, quoting an unsubstantiated tweet of bibles being burned in Portland. 

Edited by squistion
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, squistion said:

That is really impressive. An article from that esteemed website, The Christian Research Network, quoting an unsubstantiated tweet of bibles being burned in Portland. 

See I knew 30 seconds after I posted that that you would make that comment, so I provided another link for you.  Your act is tired.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, squistion said:

That is really impressive. An article from that esteemed website, The Christian Research Network, quoting an unsubstantiated tweet of bibles being burned in Portland. 

Why was Hunter Biden Trending? Seems relevant to the gun discussion. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ekbeats said:

See I knew 30 seconds after I posted that that you would make that comment, so I provided another link for you.  Your act is tired.

To be honest, it’s not any more credible than the last one. It’s a Christian extremist site devoted to trying to convince people not to take the COVID vaccine. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, timschochet said:

To be honest, it’s not any more credible than the last one. It’s a Christian extremist site devoted to trying to convince people not to take the COVID vaccine. 

:goodposting:

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, timschochet said:

The problem here is that you’re relying on discreditable sources. 

There’s literally a video in my link of them burning a bible and commenting on it.  If you choose not to accept that as fact it’s your problem, not mine. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, timschochet said:

The problem here is that you’re relying on discreditable sources. 

Exactly. He is two for two on sources with questionable credibility.

In addition, the article doesn't even specify the actual number of bibles burned (seems less than 3)) plus it claims without evidence that the perpetrators were members of Antifa who, while being anti-fascist, are not anti-religious or anti-Christian to my knowledge (not to mention the fact that most people of the left don't consider Antifa part of the left wing movement as their agenda is anarchy). 

Edited by squistion
  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Stealthycat said:

the stats are - more people are killed with hammers and hands every year in the USA than are killed in mass shootings

do you agree ?

I agree that this is a rather disingenuous comparison. 

You should be asking for

the number of mass shootings (or killings)  vs. the number of mass hammer attacks (or killings) 

Or

the number of people killed by guns (not just in mass shootings) vs the number of people killed by hammers 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, timschochet said:

To be honest, it’s not any more credible than the last one. It’s a Christian extremist site devoted to trying to convince people not to take the COVID vaccine. 

 

VIDEO: Jose Canseco Speaks Out About Steroid Use in Baseball (2005) •Jul 25, 2020

The Howard Stern Show

While speaking to Howard in 2005 about the use of steroids amongst baseball players, Jose Canseco accused Major League Baseball and the players association of turning a blind eye to the behavior in order to increase profits.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Rfdg1_wVPs

 

*******

Just because you don't like someone doesn't automatically mean

1) They are lying

2) They fail to have a real point

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, GordonGekko said:

 

VIDEO: Jose Canseco Speaks Out About Steroid Use in Baseball (2005) •Jul 25, 2020

The Howard Stern Show

While speaking to Howard in 2005 about the use of steroids amongst baseball players, Jose Canseco accused Major League Baseball and the players association of turning a blind eye to the behavior in order to increase profits.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Rfdg1_wVPs

 

*******

Just because you don't like someone doesn't automatically mean

1) They are lying

2) They fail to have a real point

If you’re suggesting fundamentalist Christians are as bat#### crazy as canseco, I suppose we can’t really argue with that. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Terminalxylem said:

While I agree in certain situations (terminal illness/suffering), you are assuming one’s choice to end their life is made when the capacity to make such a decision isn’t impaired. That often isn’t the case. 

Read the link I posted above. Suicide is frequently an impulsive decision, and those who fail in their attempt usually regret it. Moreover, failed attempts are infrequently followed by completed suicides. Unlike many other common methods, firearms usually result in death the  first time.

OK. Please explain again how a literal miniscule fraction of why a poopulation's inability to manage emotional and mental balance should result in significantly limiting the constitutionally protected rights of tens of millions of citizens? 

At what point to we ask

"Just because a few folks #### their pants, why are we all forced to wear diapers?"

 

  • Laughing 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, GordonGekko said:

 

Radical leftists are changing the language and burning books. That's usually a precursor to eventually "cleansing" the dissenters.

I would prefer not to give up my handguns. However would I trade them to keep my MBRs? Yes, I would.

Without a trade of some kind, radical leftists, who have already invaded our political structures and strongholds, will attempt to take all our long guns. Including all of your AR-15s and AK variants. They'll send their jackboots to do it. But not just jackboots, but some regular rank and file law enforcement. Some LEO's won't comply. Some will face losing their jobs ( and the ability towards feeding their kids ) if they don't.

I have no problem fighting the good fight, however I will not see the reason and purpose in risking firefights with LEOs. Because that  is exactly what will happen. And after the first few have their stories go viral in the mass media, which is what the radical leftists power brokers want, it's all the justification they need in public to start lining us Conservatives/Republicans up against a wall and start executing us.

The general public will be sated with the removal of handguns. That fits the narrative and optics in the Court Of Public Opinion that the radical left can't actually control.

You'll say it's not fair, I'll say I agree it's not fair. But the end pathway otherwise looks grim to horrible for gun owners otherwise.

You'll say this is where we should make our stand. I'll say it's not the right issue and not the right time and place.

It's something the radical left won't expect and can't control and it ends all other 2A conflicts with the general public. The odds of all Pro 2A eventually being cuffed and hooded and disappearing is a lot higher than any gun owner getting into a self defense scenario in a grocery store parking lot.

You'll lose your Glock, but you'll gain your pure military grade M16A4. It's not surrender, it's a trade.  It's a trade that will sell to the majority of the non gun owning public.

As for something actually pistol sized, I think it's high time Pro 2A seriously begins to look at Less Than Lethal options, like the Byrna pistol, as a functional alternative. Further development and market demand can eventually make something even better.  It's not the same, but if it's a way to keep hassle free long term use of MBR's, then I'd say do it.

I used to appreciate your overly verbose literal gymnastics.... 

I'm now of the option you're either insane or a pay-per-click troll..... and an enthusiastic one at that.

 

I'll give you 1200 points for the number of keys pressed...and call it a day there. Agreed?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, timschochet said:

Agreed. 
 

I want you to have as many rights and freedoms as possible. I’m in favor of banning AR-15s because I think it will bring down mass shooting deaths. That’s it. That’s my only reason. If we do it and it doesn’t work I’ll be the first for reversing such a ban, because again it is not my intent to restrict you or any other law abiding gun owner if I can help it. 

Tim I'm going to ask a couple questions: 

How many AR-15 Mass shooting deaths has the US averaged per year over the last decade? 

Tim I'm gonna need you to screen this data to include legitimate spree shootings.. not "Redneck shoots his cheating wife and himself" So let's keep it to the legit public hard events guys like you are pearl clutching so much about. 

Please present numbers and source. Thanks. 

How many AR-15 owners are there in the US in 2020? 

WARNING: Be careful.. google search may lead you to faulty data that may be disproven easily via another link. 

This is your chance to show us how well you understand this topic. 

GO. 


 

Edited by [icon]
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Terminalxylem said:

Can you expound on this a bit for me?

IMO, assault weapon bans will have minimal impact on gun deaths, including mass shootings. While I think the argument for their legality is pretty weak, gun regulation targeting suicides (expanded mental health evaluation and longer waiting periods, for example) would be a much better method of harm reduction.

Your highly atypical  performance in this thread coupled with your life-changing performance in the COVID thread (greatest kudos in FFA history IMO) have me desperately wanting to secure your presence for Precisely 6 beers. Not 3 And certainly not 9... but definitely 6. 
 

please tell me how I can make this happen. I'll accept zoom or Skype as a viable platform absent a physical summit 🤙🏼

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, [icon] said:

OK. Please explain again how a literal miniscule fraction of why a poopulation's inability to manage emotional and mental balance should result in significantly limiting the constitutionally protected rights of tens of millions of citizens? 

At what point to we ask

"Just because a few folks #### their pants, why are we all forced to wear diapers?"

 

Suicides are not a minuscule fraction of all gun deaths - they consistently outnumber law enforcement, homicides and accidents, combined.

Although 2A says keeping/bearing arms should not be infringed, it stipulates they are necessary for a well regulated militia. What type of regulation do you think the founding fathers had in mind?

Edited by Terminalxylem
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, [icon] said:

Your highly atypical  performance in this thread coupled with your life-changing performance in the COVID thread (greatest kudos in FFA history IMO) have me desperately wanting to secure your presence for Precisely 6 beers. Not 3 And certainly not 9... but definitely 6. 
 

please tell me how I can make this happen. I'll accept zoom or Skype as a viable platform absent a physical summit 🤙🏼

While I appreciate the compliment and offer, I’ve never completed 1 beer in a sitting, let alone 6. :banned:

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Terminalxylem said:

Suicides are not a minuscule fraction of all gun deaths - they consistently outnumber law enforcement, homicides and accidents, combined.

Although 2A says keeping/bearing arms should not be infringed, it stipulates they are necessary for a well regulated militia. What type of regulation do you think the founding fathers had in mind?

320 Million Americans

72 Million of them own guns  (now likely well north of 80 Million, honestly) 

 

23k firearms suicides per year

That is an extremely unfortunate, yet minuscule fraction 


I side with the Supreme Court in Heller when they ruled, that 2A meant "A 5–4 majority ruled that the language and history of the Second Amendment showed that it protects a private right of individuals to have arms for their own defense, not a right of the states to maintain a militia". 


How soon we forget that this country was quite literally founded by a group of citizens taking up arms against a tyrannical government. 
 

 

Edited by [icon]
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, [icon] said:

320 Million Americans

72 Million of them own guns 

 

23k firearms suicides per year

That is an extremely unfortunate, yet minuscule fraction 


I side with the Supreme Court in Heller when they ruled, that 2A meant "A 5–4 majority ruled that the language and history of the Second Amendment showed that it protects a private right of individuals to have arms for their own defense, not a right of the states to maintain a militia". 

 

Well heck, when you put it that way, why bother with mental health at all?

Suicide is a top 10 cause of death in this country, and guns are the most common tool involved in completed suicides. But since you consider those lives inconsequential, how many avoidable deaths would need to occur before you’d consider stricter gun regulation?

As to the text of 2A, do you believe the “well regulated militia” part was a typo? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Terminalxylem said:

Well heck, when you put it that way, why bother with mental health at all?

Suicide is a top 10 cause of death in this country, and guns are the most common tool involved in completed suicides. But since you consider those lives inconsequential, how many avoidable deaths would need to occur before you’d consider stricter gun regulation?

As to the text of 2A, do you believe the “well regulated militia” part was a typo? 

I think you missed the 390 times in this thread where I advocated extremely aggressively for dramatic increase in resources allocated to mental health, and insisted a LARGE portion of the deaths surrounding guns is, at its core, a mental health issue more than a guns issue. 
 

To me we can take away the fork and make them use a spoon...... or we can fix the underlying hunger at its source. 
 

Regarding "well regulated militia" thing... I think Penn & Teller had a playful yet interesting take on it

Edited by [icon]
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, GordonGekko said:

 

I'm Pro 2A. I'm also a pragmatist.

Existing gun owners can lose some guns or all guns. Ideally we'd get to keep all guns but that's not likely to happen. If you think I'd enjoy giving up my handguns, I would not. But if that was the price to keep my MBRs, then so be it.

Giving up handguns is a full time "win" for the anti-gun crowd. It's a benchmark for Pro 2A to say we gave you something, now shut up and leave us alone. And the truth is handguns are disproportionately represented in crimes with firearms involved.

Do I think it would stop the killings in general? No, but the goal is to save some guns, the reduction of killings in general is a different animal in a broader political discussion.

You are telling me what you want. I want the same thing in spirit. I'm also telling you what I believe, based on how I see politics shaping for the future, we will actually get. ( I'm pretty sure that watching Colion Noir advocate for 2A pretty much doomed us all. )

If Pro 2A is going to take a hit in either direction, the best we can do is decide where that hit is going to land.

If you are saying this kind of solution would cost some people their lives, I'd say it's probably going to happen but it would be the exception and not the rule. There is not going to be a one sized fit all solution. There will be pain and costs. Sucks to say it, sucks to hear it, but that's where this is all headed.

 

and while I understand that train of thought ......... have we as gun owners not given up enough already?

hundreds of laws restricting and taxing and licensing and background checking and registering and outright banning ............ it will NEVER be enough, even when all the guns are gone, the crazy anti people will then ban knives, ball bats, ........... all the time, ignoring the core problem

the exceptionally small % of people who are just evil/bad/deranged ...... if we actually targeted THOSE people, none of the rest of the 330 million in the USA would have to give up anything

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Yenrub said:

the number of mass shootings (or killings)  vs. the number of mass hammer attacks (or killings) 

Or

the number of people killed by guns (not just in mass shootings) vs the number of people killed by hammers 

why not narrow it down even more?

has to be a certain kind of hammer or a certain kind of gun 

 

I think its insane to continually focus on the instruments people use in crimes ............ vs the people that are committing them

Again, its like banning Bud Light or red cars in an attempt to stop drunk driving ....... the people driving drunk will drink something else or drive a different color car ......... and people hell bent on hurting others will choose another weapon

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, squistion said:

Exactly. He is two for two on sources with questionable credibility.

 

he has two sources that doesn't support what you think, so its easier for you to shove them aside vs looking at whether you might be wrong on the issue

isn't that closer to the truth ?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, [icon] said:

 

 

23k firearms suicides per year

That is an extremely unfortunate, yet minuscule fraction 


 

 

in the thread on smoking, people are arguing that whatever a person wants to do to themselves, as long as it doesn't directly affect others, should be allowed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

Can you explain to me what an assault rifle is?

I've been asking that - anti-gunners don't want to answer because the definition constantly changes

amazing to me to be against something and they don't even know what they're against

  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, [icon] said:

I think you missed the 390 times in this thread where I advocated extremely aggressively for dramatic increase in resources allocated to mental health, and insisted a LARGE portion of the deaths surrounding guns is, at its core, a mental health issue more than a guns issue. 
 

To me we can take away the fork and make them use a spoon...... or we can fix the underlying hunger at its source. 
 

Regarding "well regulated militia" thing... I think Penn & Teller had a playful yet interesting take on it

I've liked the back and forth.   

From what I get from a good portion of one side is that the acknowledgment that we can't and shouldn't do anything about handguns allows people to keep their rights for protection and to bear arms.    The other proposals are fine because of that - clip size, AR bans, background checks, long wait to get a gun, etc..   None of that effects your ability to protect your house and family.  

I am still working through my thoughts on this, just trying to put in simple words (probably more for myself) where I think a large portion of one side is coming from.   I get the sense they don't feel they are infringing on your rights.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

I've liked the back and forth.   

From what I get from a good portion of one side is that the acknowledgment that we can't and shouldn't do anything about handguns allows people to keep their rights for protection and to bear arms.    The other proposals are fine because of that - clip size, AR bans, background checks, long wait to get a gun, etc..   None of that effects your ability to protect your house and family.  

I am still working through my thoughts on this, just trying to put in simple words (probably more for myself) where I think a large portion of one side is coming from.   I get the sense they don't feel they are infringing on your rights.  

People love giving away other peoples rights. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, [icon] said:

People love giving away other peoples rights. 

Like I said, people (and this is where I struggle in the debate as well) don't see that as giving away your rights.   You still have guns.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

Like I said, people (and this is where I struggle in the debate as well) don't see that as giving away your rights.   You still have guns.  

You can only eat bread.

Why are you mad? you still have food.

 

Free speech is only protected in person, not online... because online bullying has led to more children's deaths than mass shootings with ARs.  
 

Hyperbolic... a bit... but you get the point. 

 

 

There has been zero viable case presented here to back a continued erosion of constitutional rights. 

Edited by [icon]
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, timschochet said:


2.Universal background checks are not here. There are none required for private sales or transfers. That’s why gun shows are so popular; because you can go to one and purchase a gun from a private dealer without a background check. That’s a loophole that universal background checks would eliminate. 

 

Can you post a link to a story about a major mass shooting perpetrated by someone who acquired their weapons from a gun show?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, [icon] said:

Tim I'm going to ask a couple questions: 

How many AR-15 Mass shooting deaths has the US averaged per year over the last decade? 

Tim I'm gonna need you to screen this data to include legitimate spree shootings.. not "Redneck shoots his cheating wife and himself" So let's keep it to the legit public hard events guys like you are pearl clutching so much about. 

Please present numbers and source. Thanks. 

How many AR-15 owners are there in the US in 2020? 

WARNING: Be careful.. google search may lead you to faulty data that may be disproven easily via another link. 

This is your chance to show us how well you understand this topic. 

GO. 


 

1. I don’t know about the last 10 years. This article from Axios contains statistics since 1999, and notes that the number of times AR-15s are used in mass shootings is actually increasing: 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.axios.com/deadliest-mass-shootings-common-4211bafd-da85-41d4-b3b2-b51ff61e7c86.html

2. Wiki estimates there are anywhere from 5-10 million AR-15s in circulation. Not sure about the number of owners. All of this is hard to pin down without gun registration, which we really could use.

3. What’s the point of this questionnaire? If you’re trying to show that the ratio of mass shooters to lawful gun owners is incredibly tiny, I acknowledge that fact already. I don’t think it has bearing on my argument. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, timschochet said:

.Universal background checks are not here. There are none required for private sales or transfers. That’s why gun shows are so popular; because you can go to one and purchase a gun from a private dealer without a background check. That’s a loophole that universal background checks would eliminate. 

Damn Tim, thanks for telling me why gun shows are so popular. 

Since you're an expert on the issue I'll go ahead and ask, how many gun shows have you been to? 

 

Oh... zero?  That's weird. 

 

 

For the 1000th time.... STOP speaking from a position of authority on something you know nothing about. 

Edited by [icon]
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, I mean some would argue (I'm not necessarily one of them) that an AR15 is an ideal weapon for home defense.  Depending on myriad factors, including but not limited to their personal training, physical strength and dexterity, where they live (apartment building vs townhouse vs rural home), relatively easy access to ammo, etc. you could certainly make the case for an AR being the best option to defend their home, their family and themselves.  That legislation is being discussed-primarily by a subset of people that have almost no idea what they are talking about when it comes to guns or home defense using a gun-that would take away a person's ability to defend themselves in a way that they see fit is anathema to point of the second amendment-at least in part.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I don’t think it has bearing on my argument. 

Considering you've shown, repeatedly, that you have NO idea what you're talking about.... "your argument" carries as much water as a colander. 

 

But hey... feel free to continue making noise that lacks any substance. 

Edited by [icon]
Link to post
Share on other sites

A guy at work asked why the flags were at half mast.  I said because of the shooting in Colorado. Then he says "15 people were shot in a mass shooting in Chicago and the flags were not at half mast..why because they were all black?"    I did not have answer.     

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

Like I said, people (and this is where I struggle in the debate as well) don't see that as giving away your rights.   You still have guns.  

as long as "they" can determine what you have and don't have

is that really freedom? when the Fed Govt decides what you can and cannot have?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Summer Wheat said:

A guy at work asked why the flags were at half mast.  I said because of the shooting in Colorado. Then he says "15 people were shot in a mass shooting in Chicago and the flags were not at half mast..why because they were all black?"    I did not have answer.     

It's weird that the Colorado shooters face isn't shown on CNN.com. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, [icon] said:

Damn Tim, thanks for telling me why gun shows are so popular. 

Since you're an expert on the issue I'll go ahead and ask, how many gun shows have you been to? 

 

Oh... zero?  That's weird. 

 

 

For the 1000th time.... STOP speaking from a position of authority on something you know nothing about. 

I’ve been to 3 gun shows. All as a teenager. I stopped going because some of the guys in Nazi uniforms freaked me out, 

But I disagree with your premise. This is the political forum. I talk about Trump and Biden without knowing them. I discuss the Middle East without having been there. I can read. 

Link to post
Share on other sites


Should I be able to own an anti-aircraft gun? It has gun right in the name, and in this day and age protecting against tyranny would also mean having anti-aircraft capabilities. There are also a lot of geese that fly through here; I find a 25 caliber anti aircraft gun works great against these nuisance animals.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, timschochet said:

I’ve been to 3 gun shows. All as a teenager. I stopped going because some of the guys in Nazi uniforms freaked me out, 

Oh you went to a gun show 30 years ago... nevermind... you're 100% authorized to speak from a position of authority as to the current state of firearms sales at them. :lol: 

 

Carry on. 

Edited by [icon]
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...