Mass Shootings Thread (2 Viewers)

FairWarning · Mar 27, 2021

KarmaPolice said:
Yeah, that was my point above. For gun owners it's probably #1, and for many R's that or abortion are at the top of the list I would imagine.

Guns do nothing for me and abortion rights are probably more a southern/religious issue. For me its the economy and legal immigration, then guns. I have guns third because I do think it's a way of eroding our rights in general. Anyway if they were illegal tomorrow (hypothetical), the criminals will always have them.

Bottomfeeder Sports · Mar 27, 2021

unckeyherb said:
I’m an architect and I can tell you that new school designs are already being designed to address active shooter situations, limiting shooting angles, hiding spots and beefing up securability. There’s no doubt that the modifications required would be costly to existing infrastructure but like I said, this would have a much bigger impact on school shootings than banning rifles with pistol-grips.

I know that most are against this but removing the “No Gun Zone” designation from school property would be a net benefit. I’m not suggesting you require teachers to carry. If they want to and are trained/have experience they may. The fact that there would be a non-zero number of people inside the school that can shoot back may deter targeting the school. I’m less convinced of this but think there is possible positivity from it.

These are just a few hundred yards away from house.

As for modifications of existing infrastructure. I don't think that many of us tax and spend types are opposed to such things. It just that these types of modifications take time. Time which makes saying "lets do this first" seem more like a just another stalling technique. Concurrent with other things sure. First even, fine/ But not as the only step.

djmich · Mar 27, 2021

KarmaPolice said:
Yeah, that was my point above. For gun owners it's probably #1, and for many R's that or abortion are at the top of the list I would imagine.

I'm not an R, would be called an R...and those two not top for me (I actually support a womans right to end the life of the unborn...or at least lean more towards later in term than most R's)

rockaction · Mar 27, 2021

NorvilleBarnes said:
This is another example of why I dislike taking topics like this backwards. Usually it's with the distraction of hunting and all the irrelevant discussion about which guns are used for hunting and whether people are hunting for sport or for food. But protection from home invasion, personal protection, hunting, sport, collecting, target practice, protection from monarchies, zombies, just because, and pound sand are all perfectly valid reasons for owning a gun and no valid reason are needed because it's a right confirmed (not established) in the Constitution.

I agree with your conclusion but I don't know what you mean by taking a "topic like this backwards." Do you mean that you assert the right first, then get into the policy discussion? For example, is it that you want to say "it's my right, and it's effective because of this reason" instead of "for these reasons, therefore my right"?

Is that what you're getting at here?

I don't know what to say if you are. That would take about ten years of more law school for me. Natural rights are given by God as inalienable (unable to give away and that you have just by existing, even within the state) but I'm not sure the right to bear arms is a natural right properly considered. It's a long and winding policy road to the right to bear arms in the United States. Now if you had said the natural right to self-defense, then that is not really debatable unless you're in 21st Century Europe. But the means by which self-defense is procured or used -- and the scope of self-defense itself -- is subject to policy considerations of the nation-state, it would seem to me, at least at first blush. That gun rights are granted to form "a well-regulated militia" sounds very much like a policy argument (proceeding from the reverse) and not a declaration of a natural right to me.

djmich · Mar 27, 2021

KarmaPolice said:
It is important to look at, but we are also talking about mass shootings and the fear that RA and I were talking about. I get more people die that way statistically but we are also not concerned about somebody going to a theater and killing 10 people with their bare hands.

.

Agree, that would be one datapoint/fact pattern in the ultimate decision.

What we don't know and never will...is how many people would be killed with alternative weapons if rifles were banned. And remember, that number is all rifles, not just AR-15. I'd venture a very high proportion...which is why AR-15 is just the very beginning.

KarmaPolice · Mar 27, 2021

djmich said:
I'm not an R, would be called an R...and those two not top for me (I actually support a womans right to end the life of the unborn...or at least lean more towards later in term than most R's)

I fully admit that I could be wrong in my guess based on small sample size. Most I talk to say they would never vote D because of those 2 things.

KarmaPolice · Mar 27, 2021

djmich said:
Agree, that would be one datapoint/fact pattern in the ultimate decision.

What we don't know and never will...is how many people would be killed with alternative weapons if rifles were banned. And remember, that number is all rifles, not just AR-15. I'd venture not many...which is why AR-15 is just the very beginning.

I didn't click on it, but thought I just saw an article or stat that said of the last 50-60 mass shootings about 25% used an AR-15. I'd have to dig farther.

djmich · Mar 27, 2021

KarmaPolice said:
I didn't click on it, but thought I just saw an article or stat that said of the last 50-60 mass shootings about 25% used an AR-15. I'd have to dig farther.

That is valuable info and I'd say it highlights that to the extent these people know what they are doing that AR-15's are the most dangerous / easiest to access. But of course, absent an AR-15 the insanity does not go away....they have many, many other deadly weapons available and I would confidently say they would figure out how to use and modify them for their purposes.

For the record, with the limited info I have right now, I'd lean no AR-15. The biggest reason I waiver would be because it practically does very very little to reduce killings and just goes to the next step of banning rifles or something else.

parrot · Mar 27, 2021

[icon] said:
Honest question... have you ever fired a full auto weapon.

I only ask because if you've done so I'll be surprised, as the gap is much much wider than most folks realize.

No I haven’t, or a bump stock, so I may be speaking a little out of school I guess. I just know in the videos I’ve watched those things fire prett damn fast.

Terminalxylem · Mar 27, 2021

rockaction said:
The meta-analysis draws no conclusion other than about gun deaths due to homicides and suicides. I'd already covered that in my very first post. Intent crimes. Pretty basic stuff to think about.

It's not stubborn superpowers I'm divining here for my argument. There aren't any studies that control for proper storage and criminality. You're asking me to look at studies the meta-analysis admitted were lacking. You have nothing. Before banning or regulating something that is a constitutional right, it would seem the impetus is on the reformer to provide facts and studies rather than letting emotion and anecdotal experience lead the way. All you've said is that people are less safe with guns in the home because of suicides and homicides per the literature. I'm telling you not only is that intuitive (we don't need studies telling us that, really) it's already been considered in our gun laws. All you've given me is essentially another tautology as backup to your argument.

And this all stemmed from talking about how gun owners should talk to non-gun owners. You've missed context and provided no substance to back up claims that were tangents to the issue at hand.

Take care.

I’m not following what you mean by “intent crimes”. Suicide isn’t a crime, And murder includes just about anyone, other than law enforcement/military, who kills with a gun. The paper I linked suggests many of those were impulsive acts, as can occur in domestic disputes, not classic “bad guys with a gun.”

I also mentioned studies which looked at gun storage, but I guess it was too much trouble for you to challenge your preconceived notion. Here’s a summary of their findings:

Some of the research conducted to date has found a higher risk of a violent death in homes with handguns and unlocked and loaded guns (13, 17, 19). However, many studies have either not examined the risk associated with specific firearm-related characteristics (e.g., type of gun or storage practice) (14, 15, 18, 23, 24) or have found no significant differences (16). In our study, the risk of dying from a firearm-related homicide or suicide was greater in homes with guns, but this risk did not vary by specific firearm-related characteristics. Simply having a gun in the home increased the risk of a firearm homicide or firearm suicide in the home. Whether certain types of guns or storage practices confer greater or lesser risk, or reflect recall and reporting biases when studied, is unclear. Previous research suggests that proxy respondents and nonusers of firearms are not always knowledgeable about the number or types of guns in the household or the storage practice and may be inclined to give socially desirable responses (27–29).

I don’t think many gun owners believe they’re less safe with guns in their home. Quite the contrary, many people own them because of the illusion of safety. Few people consider they (or their loved ones) may ever use their weapons impulsively, but the data clearly shows it happens far too often. The arrogant response is assuming it won’t happen to you.

If you’re not satisfied with a meta analysis of firearm deaths as relevant to a gun control discussion, I don’t know what to tell you. And every study has limitations, but that doesn’t invalidate the consistent finding that gun owners are more likely to die than those without firearms. There is no emotional content to that interpretation of the data, unlike the non substantive dogma you’ve divined.

Although the fear-mongering you’ve advocated may convince some that guns are a necessary evil, if one takes an honest look at the literature, it’s hard to base this stance on the safety firearms provide. You’re better off emphasizing 2A’s “shall not be infringed” verbiage absent context, and hoping your audience doesn’t delve into differences in gun deaths between areas with different regulations.

KarmaPolice · Mar 27, 2021

djmich said:
That is valuable info and I'd say it highlights that to the extent these people know what they are doing that AR-15's are the most dangerous / easiest to access. But of course, absent an AR-15 the insanity does not go away....they have many, many other deadly weapons available and I would confidently say they would figure out how to use and modify them for their purposes.

correct, but the point I gather from the debate is: we can't (and most don't want to) touch handguns, and does the above mean we don't try to put a stop to that 25%? I honestly don't know my answer to the second part, because like you said that void very likely be filled with a handgun or something else, so how much of a change would that ban alone create?.

djmich · Mar 27, 2021

Terminalxylem said:
I’m not following what you mean by “intent crimes”. Suicide isn’t a crime, And murder includes just about anyone, other than law enforcement/military, who kills with a gun. The paper I linked suggests many of those were impulsive acts, as can occur in domestic disputes, not classic “bad guys with a gun.”

I also mentioned studies which looked at gun storage, but I guess it was too much trouble for you to challenge your preconceived notion. Here’s a summary of their findings:

I don’t think many gun owners believe they’re less safe with guns in their home. Quite the contrary, many people own them because of the illusion of safety. Few people consider they (or their loved ones) may ever use their weapons impulsively, but the data clearly shows it happens far too often. The arrogant response is assuming it won’t happen to you.

If you’re not satisfied with a meta analysis of firearm deaths as relevant to a gun control discussion, I don’t know what to tell you. And every study has limitations, but that doesn’t invalidate the consistent finding that gun owners are more likely to die than those without firearms. There is no emotional content to that interpretation of the data, unlike the non substantive dogma you’ve divined.

Although the fear-mongering you’ve advocated may convince some that guns are a necessary evil, if one takes an honest look at the literature, it’s hard to base this stance on the safety firearms provide. You’re better off emphasizing 2A’s “shall not be infringed” verbiage absent context, and hoping your audience doesn’t delve into differences in gun deaths between areas with different regulations.

Without looking at the data I'd completely expect more deaths in homes with guns, just like I expect more drownings in homes with pools. Neither of those arguments though is compelling reason to ban them....for me.

I'd actually bet many more children die from accidental drowning than accidental gun shooting.

unckeyherb · Mar 27, 2021

KarmaPolice said:
correct, but the point I gather from the debate is: we can't (and most don't want to) touch handguns, and does the above mean we don't try to put a stop to that 25%? I honestly don't know my answer to the second part, because like you said that void very likely be filled with a handgun or something else, so how much of a change would that ban alone create?.

Right, the obvious inference is that of those 25% shootings where AR 15’s are used at least some percentage would simply use a handgun. Coupled with anecdotal evidence-such as the Virginia Tech shooting-I’m not convinced that fatalities would drop at all. That shooter had two handguns only and it’s still the highest death toll in a school shooting ever. Even with the perceived more recent increase of AR-15 use.

Terminalxylem · Mar 27, 2021

rockaction said:
Terminalxylem says you're less safe with a gun in the home. I agree, but I think, if you assume there are no criminal acts committed by the gun owner, and proper storage of guns is undertaken, you're probably more safe with guns in the home than without because of perpetrators and people wishing you ill.

That's all. How one gets to each conclusion there is the issue. It's muddled because gun owners do commit criminal acts with them.

I think the bolded is a bad assumption, and the data suggests I’m correct. Not for most gun owners, but enough deaths occur among “good guys” that collectively they’re less safe with a firearm than without.

I also get the sense you’re overestimating the role criminals play in the tally. Gun owners are far more likely to die in a suicide or domestic dispute than shot down by a burglar or drug dealer.

parrot · Mar 27, 2021

GordonGekko said:
OK, I'll use this post as an example.

Many Pro 2A people will get into a technical debate or try to parse/split hairs on the minutiae of the claim made. Is parrot's claim accurate? No. Should anyone try to change parrot's mind? On this specifically? No. It's pointless.

What would help?

If parrot was amenable and passed a deep background, and if I ran the NRA, as stated before, give him a single barreled shotgun. Literally give him one. Now he's a gun owner. The hope is he will investigate and learn more and see many of the distinctions and complications and benefits of being a gun owner.

And if parrot didn't want to be a gun owner? Then the next solution is to make all his neighbors gun owners. And all his coworkers. Everyone he went to college with and everyone working at the restaurants he frequents.

You don't need to convert every person, you just need to dramatically outnumber non gun owners with gun owners, and when you do that, you get the votes and money you need to protect 2A rights.

On an aside, do I think civilians should have bump stocks? No. I don't see much utility for them for military/law enforcement, but if they want them, then sure, an exemption for them. For those who train law enforcement and military and are competitive shooters like a Chris Costa (Magpul Dynamics) or a Jerry Miculek or a Taran Tactical, then sure, an exemption for them. But for rank and file civilians? No. I say this even recognizing part of the issue of 59 people dying and over 500 injured at a concert was more from "plunging fire" as a concept from an elevated position than just from a bump stock. But that's a distinction that won't sell to the general public. The general public won't accept that distinction.

Those who are Pro 2A need to pick and choose their battles carefully. Bump stocks are not the hill to die on. Kyle Rittenhouse is not the hill to die on.

If I created 1000 new gun owners tomorrow, that does more for 2A rights than arguing with 1000 people who won't change their mind about bump stocks. Or even just arguing with 100. Or even 10. Or even merely one.

Don't argue. Don't try to change anyone's mind if it's not through life example. Don't give the anti 2A crowd any reason, not one inch, in finding a claim that Pro 2A are some kind of stereotypical xenophobic wannabe killers. Do your part to create new gun owners in a positive and practical manner.

"Being right" in minutiae has limited utility in actually protecting our guns. That's the deal. You don't have to like how the world works, but you do have to live in it.

Hate to ruin the closest you came to making a valid point, but I own a single-shot shotgun. I also own pump and auto loader shotguns. I previously stated in this thread that I currently own a double-digit number of firearms and have owned many more over the years. I put a few rounds through my .17 yesterday. So maybe find another target for your next super-presumptuous post.

I believe in the 2nd amendment. I also believe it has legal limits which has been proven out by the NFA which has stood for almost 100 years. I believe in the right to keep and bear arms, I also understand that there are categories of weapons that should not be available for retail purchase as their potential for public harm so far outweighs any practical utility in the hands of civilians. I believe we should treat all semi-autos center fires which accept detachable magazines the same way we treat automatic weapons. Hope this is clear enough for you.

Terminalxylem · Mar 27, 2021

djmich said:
Without looking at the data I'd completely expect more deaths in homes with guns, just like I expect more drownings in homes with pools. Neither of those arguments though is compelling reason to ban them....for me.

I'd actually bet many more children die from accidental drowning than accidental gun shooting.

I said nothing about bans. Also, you may want to try looking at the data.

rockaction · Mar 27, 2021

Terminalxylem said:
I think the bolded is a bad assumption, and the data suggests I’m correct. Not for most gun owners, but enough deaths occur among “good guys” that collectively they’re less safe with a firearm than without.

I also get the sense you’re overestimating the role criminals play in the tally. Gun owners are far more likely to die in a suicide or domestic dispute than shot down by a burglar or drug dealer

Full stop because I'm not getting into this all day. When I say controlling for suicide and homicide, I mean just that. None of the vaunted "meta-analysis" you've shown me, especially in your latest bolded endeavor, accounts for proper gun storage AND non-homicides/suicides. None of it.

"Whether certain types of guns or storage practices confer greater or lesser risk, or reflect recall and reporting biases when studied, is unclear."

I mean, that's what you just posted in your own post back to me and you highlighted the section in front of it? Look, read further. If it's unclear, it doesn't point to any evidence that it's clear one way or the other. Do you understand that? They're saying they can't control for gun storage and safety. The only conclusion they can draw is that homicide and suicide rates go up when there are guns in the home. My point is exactly what I've been saying all along plus a "no ####, Sherlock." Tell me something I don't know.

djmich · Mar 27, 2021

Terminalxylem said:
I said nothing about bans. Also, you may want to try looking at the data.

lol dammit i must of read something too fast.

I didnt mean to imply you did....but as I'm mostly interested in using the data to draw conclusions I stated what it meant...to me

Terminalxylem · Mar 27, 2021

rockaction said:
Full stop because I'm not getting into this all day. When I say controlling for suicide and homicide, I mean just that. None of the vaunted "meta-analysis" you've shown me, especially in your latest bolded endeavor, accounts for proper gun storage AND non-homicides/suicides. None of it.

"Whether certain types of guns or storage practices confer greater or lesser risk, or reflect recall and reporting biases when studied, is unclear."

I mean, that's what you just posted in your own post back to me and you highlighted the section in front of it? Look, read further. If it's unclear, it doesn't point to any evidence that it's clear one way or the other. Do you understand that? They're saying they can't control for gun storage and safety. The only conclusion they can draw is that homicide and suicide rates go up when there are guns in the home. My point is exactly what I've been saying all along plus a "no ####, Sherlock." Tell me something I don't know.

I think the problem is you don’t read scientific literature. It’s standard practice to provide limitations, but the statement you’ve alluded to isn’t about the study findings per se - they show no effect of storage practices on gun deaths. Read the full text and you’ll see. Or don’t, and keep telling me I don’t know what I’m talking about. It’s pretty obvious you’ve made up your mind.

rockaction · Mar 27, 2021

Terminalxylem said:
I think the problem is you don’t read scientific literature. It’s standard practice to provide limitations, but the statement you’ve alluded to isn’t about the study findings per se - they show no effect of storage practices on gun deaths. Read the full text and you’ll see. Or don’t, and keep telling me I don’t know what I’m talking about. It’s pretty obvious you’ve made up your mind.

.

rockaction · Mar 27, 2021

This is really stupid.

timschochet · Mar 27, 2021

@rockaction

I don’t want to see you get suspended GB. I value your posts way too much even though I disagree with you a whole lot of the time.
You need to edit or remove your last few posts

Chaz McNulty · Mar 27, 2021

This is really stupid.

I think everyone on both sides can agree with this.

Terminalxylem · Mar 27, 2021

timschochet said:
@rockaction

I don’t want to see you get suspended GB. I value your posts way too much even though I disagree with you a whole lot of the time.
You need to edit or remove your last few posts

Oh shucks, I missed his response.

As a neutral third party, do you think my posting has been out-of-line?

Admittedly, I don’t always understand RA’s posts, and I feel like we’re talking past one another on this issue.

djmich · Mar 27, 2021

Terminalxylem said:
Oh shucks, I missed his response.

As a neutral third party, do you think my posting has been out-of-line?

Admittedly, I don’t always understand RA’s posts, and I feel like we’re talking past one another on this issue.

My impression is that you are a bit of a tool, since you asked for 3rd party opinion. Certainly not bannable or anything.

Terminalxylem · Mar 27, 2021

djmich said:
My impression is that you are a bit of a tool, since you asked for 3rd party opinion. Certainly not bannable or anything.

Wow, is name-calling on the ban list?

For the love of god, I wasn't asking for Tim to team up against RA. Since I obviously pissed him off, and he read RA’s deleted response, I was just wondering if I had crossed the line.

KarmaPolice · Mar 27, 2021

Terminalxylem said:
Wow, is name-calling on the ban list?

For the love of god, I wasn't asking for Tim to team up against RA. Since I obviously pissed him off, and he read RA’s deleted response, I was just wondering if I had crossed the line.

Sometimes it's hard not to around here, but IMO there was a bit of snark in one of your posts.

I will be honest - I had trouble following your exchange. To me it seemed like you were saying the same things to each other while talking past each other at the same time. :lol:

Terminalxylem · Mar 27, 2021

KarmaPolice said:
Sometimes it's hard not to around here, but IMO there was a bit of snark in one of your posts.

I will be honest - I had trouble following your exchange. To me it seemed like you were saying the same things to each other while talking past each other at the same time.

There was definitely snark - in response to RA being dismissive. But I didn’t expect him getting upset enough to post something so inflammatory Tim felt a need to intervene. I also was surprised asking for feedback would garner insults.

Live and learn, I guess.

dkp993 · Mar 27, 2021

Didn’t see the exchange prior to the posts being deleted so don’t know what was said but Rock’s a good dude and a valuable poster here. Sometimes this place can get all our hackles up, happens to the best of us.

djmich · Mar 27, 2021

Terminalxylem said:
There was definitely snark - in response to RA being dismissive. But I didn’t expect him getting upset enough to post something so inflammatory Tim felt a need to intervene. I also was surprised asking for feedback would garner insults.

Live and learn, I guess.

Sorry dude I should have said something like the tool factor was high or a bit snarky.

My apologies.

unckeyherb · Mar 27, 2021

dkp993 said:
Didn’t see the exchange prior to the posts being deleted so don’t know what was said but Rock’s a good dude and a valuable poster here. Sometimes this place can get all our hackles up, happens to the best of us.

@rockaction is my favorite poster here. Don’t know what was said but while he may go off the rails from time to time, I think he’s always genuine. It’s a nuclear topic, gotta expect some explosive posts.

eta like I said earlier I’ve been given one timeout in my 15+ years of posting. It was in a thread with a topic similar to this one.

rockaction · Mar 27, 2021

Oh jeez. I don't always express myself in tone the way it comes out on paper. I used an expletive directed at you, Terminal. It was about the scientific literature comment. It's all good. I think tim overreacted a bit, but he's seen me go really off the rails, so he lets me know when is probably a good idea to back off. All good on my end. Thanks to everyone for saying I'm a good dude or looking out. That means a lot from quality posters @djmich @unckeyherb @dkp993 @timschochetand @Chaz McNulty

Stealthycat · Mar 28, 2021

-fish- said:
There is no value in discussion with you.

you didn't even read the link I posted which clearly showed my son's turkey hunting shotgun would be banned - labeled an "assault" weapon and not on the list the Govt decides can and cannot be had

that's your side -fish, and I will continue to make everyone aware of what the anti-gunners REALLY want

it has nothing to do with saving lives

it has nothing to stop with stopping criminals and crazy people

it has everything to do with infringing on the rights of legal, law abiding people who do nothing wrong. We are NOT the problem

Stealthycat · Mar 28, 2021

Terminalxylem said:
The problem is, all those hypothetical scenarios are less likely than killing yourself or loved ones with a gun in your home.

Also, no one is advocating a gunless society. We just want our firearm bearers well regulated.

there are many many people who defend themselves with guns every year - good guys with guns stopped the Boulder murderer

firearms ARE well regulated

but since evil still exists, ya'll want more regulations, more regulations ..... and short of a ban, regulations only affect the legal law abiding don't they ?

Stealthycat · Mar 28, 2021

KarmaPolice said:
I didn't click on it, but thought I just saw an article or stat that said of the last 50-60 mass shootings about 25% used an AR-15. I'd have to dig farther.

why only discuss mass shootings ?

because the media hypes them, they glorify them - they bring them to your attention

the hundreds shot this weekend in large cities across the country and dozens murdered .... you didn't see them, so you don't think about them

there is a political agenda here - don't you agree ?

Opie · Mar 28, 2021

Stealthycat said:
why only discuss mass shootings ?

because the media hypes them, they glorify them - they bring them to your attention

the hundreds shot this weekend in large cities across the country and dozens murdered .... you didn't see them, so you don't think about them

there is a political agenda here - don't you agree ?

Funny thing too....just take a guess at how many people took their stimmy checks....and bought that assault weapon they were looking at.

KarmaPolice · Mar 28, 2021

Stealthycat said:
why only discuss mass shootings ?

because the media hypes them, they glorify them - they bring them to your attention

the hundreds shot this weekend in large cities across the country and dozens murdered .... you didn't see them, so you don't think about them

there is a political agenda here - don't you agree ?

Because this is the mass shooting thread.

sho nuff · Mar 28, 2021

Not the most compelling argument from Graham.

NorvilleBarnes · Mar 28, 2021

sho nuff said:
Not the most compelling argument from Graham.

"I own an AR-15. If there's a natural disaster in South Carolina where the cops can't protect my neighborhood, my house will be the last one that the gang will come to, because I can defend myself." -- Lindsey Graham

Sounds good to me - but doesn't really have anything to do with the topic.

sho nuff · Mar 28, 2021

NorvilleBarnes said:
"I own an AR-15. If there's a natural disaster in South Carolina where the cops can't protect my neighborhood, my house will be the last one that the gang will come to, because I can defend myself." -- Lindsey Graham

Sounds good to me - but doesn't really have anything to do with the topic.

Seems there has been an all around discussion about guns here so yeah, I think it fits.

Sounds good to you?

A senator opining that a natural disaster somehow means gangs of people are going to go neighborhood to neighborhood? And somehow...Graham thinks any of them are scared of him or would somehow know that house has an AR 15?

Yeah...doesn't sound good...sounds like Lindsey is pretty delusional.

NorvilleBarnes · Mar 28, 2021

sho nuff said:
Seems there has been an all around discussion about guns here so yeah, I think it fits.

Sounds good to you?

A senator opining that a natural disaster somehow means gangs of people are going to go neighborhood to neighborhood? And somehow...Graham thinks any of them are scared of him or would somehow know that house has an AR 15?

Yeah...doesn't sound good...sounds like Lindsey is pretty delusional.

Yes, if there's a natural disaster that prevents police from being able to respond to a call or protect you, then having a gun and being able to protect yourself sounds good to me.

unckeyherb · Mar 28, 2021

NorvilleBarnes said:
Yes, if there's a natural disaster that prevents police from being able to respond to a call or protect you, then having a gun and being able to protect yourself sounds good to me.

Agreed

timschochet · Mar 28, 2021

NorvilleBarnes said:
Yes, if there's a natural disaster that prevents police from being able to respond to a call or protect you, then having a gun and being able to protect yourself sounds good to me.

A gun yes. But why do you need an AR-15?

NorvilleBarnes · Mar 28, 2021

timschochet said:
A gun yes. But why do you need an AR-15?

I believe this falls under the "pound sand" clause of my previous explanation.

NorvilleBarnes said:
This is another example of why I dislike taking topics like this backwards. Usually it's with the distraction of hunting and all the irrelevant discussion about which guns are used for hunting and whether people are hunting for sport or for food. But protection from home invasion, personal protection, hunting, sport, collecting, target practice, protection from monarchies, zombies, just because, and pound sand are all perfectly valid reasons for owning a gun and no valid reason are needed because it's a right confirmed (not established) in the Constitution.

timschochet · Mar 28, 2021

NorvilleBarnes said:
I believe this falls under the "pound sand" clause of my previous explanation.

Yeah but see I believe that if we make these weapons illegal to own, it will save lives in these mass shooting incidents. I can’t prove that of course but I have good reason to believe it.

Which means this is an issue of public safety. Which means that if you want to go on owning these weapons, you need to come up with a more compelling reason than “pound sand”. Because otherwise you’ll eventually will be outvoted, and the courts will not protect your right to own them under the Second Amendment because they don’t agree with you on that.

NorvilleBarnes · Mar 28, 2021

timschochet said:
Yeah but see I believe that if we make these weapons illegal to own, it will save lives in these mass shooting incidents. I can’t prove that of course but I have good reason to believe it.

Which means this is an issue of public safety. Which means that if you want to go on owning these weapons, you need to come up with a more compelling reason than “pound sand”. Because otherwise you’ll eventually will be outvoted, and the courts will not protect your right to own them under the Second Amendment because they don’t agree with you on that.

Understood, but that's why I think you have it backwards. "Explain why you need ______" fill in the blank with a particular firearm is the wrong question. It's sort of like asking, tell me the topic of your speech and I'll decide if you should have the freedom of speech to cover it. (Imagine an offensive poem about pounding sand) The only way I'm concerned about being outvoted would be surrounding a SCOTUS limitation or the unlikely scenario that congress votes to repeal the 2nd.

unckeyherb · Mar 28, 2021

timschochet said:
Yeah but see I believe that if we make these weapons illegal to own, it will save lives in these mass shooting incidents. I can’t prove that of course but I have good reason to believe it.

Which means this is an issue of public safety. Which means that if you want to go on owning these weapons, you need to come up with a more compelling reason than “pound sand”. Because otherwise you’ll eventually will be outvoted, and the courts will not protect your right to own them under the Second Amendment because they don’t agree with you on that.

In the possibility of a natural disaster, for instance, where there is potential to really need to defend my home and my family for some amount of time, I want the best possible means to do so. I personally prefer a Mossberg 590A1 which is a pump action shotgun. However, a very good argument can be made for the AR15 platform. The argument for owning these types of guns is that they represent the best ability for me to defend my family. The fact that there are something around 20 million of these guns in circulation further bolsters my argument. I should be able to match firepower that a bad actor is going to come at me with.

dkp993 · Mar 28, 2021

KarmaPolice said:
Because this is the mass shooting thread.

You’ve got it bad my friend. Do I need to organize an FBGs intervention to help you quit the SC.

KarmaPolice · Mar 28, 2021

unckeyherb said:
In the possibility of a natural disaster, for instance, where there is potential to really need to defend my home and my family for some amount of time, I want the best possible means to do so. I personally prefer a Mossberg 590A1 which is a pump action shotgun. However, a very good argument can be made for the AR15 platform. The argument for owning these types of guns is that they represent the best ability for me to defend my family. The fact that there are something around 20 million of these guns in circulation further bolsters my argument. I should be able to match firepower that a bad actor is going to come at me with.

There a lot of natural disasters that could happen in Philly?

dkp993 · Mar 28, 2021

unckeyherb said:
In the possibility of a natural disaster, for instance, where there is potential to really need to defend my home and my family for some amount of time, I want the best possible means to do so. I personally prefer a Mossberg 590A1 which is a pump action shotgun. However, a very good argument can be made for the AR15 platform. The argument for owning these types of guns is that they represent the best ability for me to defend my family. The fact that there are something around 20 million of these guns in circulation further bolsters my argument. I should be able to match firepower that a bad actor is going to come at me with.

While I am not anti-gun at all. The argument you make I have a hard time with. There’s lots of weapons of war that would make for excellent home self-defense, that doesn’t mean we should own them.

Mass Shootings Thread (2 Viewers)

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread