Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Mass Shootings Thread


Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

Sure, but who gets to decide what the "basic fundamental premises" are?  You?  Me?  That's where the problem lies - you really believe that you can't discuss the topic without that?  I think we can.  Like I said, all handguns were designed to kill people - just like the AR-15.  Can you have a discussion about handguns?

As effectively?  Accounting for ammo, magazine size, etc..?   

My impression is that people aren't talking about ARs because they "look scary", it's because:

1.  They have been used in high profile mass shootings

2.  They can be targeted, unlike handguns

3.  They don't believe they have a use outside of collecting and sport.  

4.  They can be targeted and gun owners are still left with guns (in the off chance an actual ban would happen - i doubt it).

 

I am still in the process of sorting through my thoughts on all this to tell you the truth.  I am not saying I agree 100% with all of this, I am just saying that you should maybe give the other side of the argument a little more credit than gun = scary.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

As effectively?  Accounting for ammo, magazine size, etc..?   

My impression is that people aren't talking about ARs because they "look scary", it's because:

1.  They have been used in high profile mass shootings

2.  They can be targeted, unlike handguns

3.  They don't believe they have a use outside of collecting and sport.  

4.  They can be targeted and gun owners are still left with guns (in the off chance an actual ban would happen - i doubt it).

 

I am still in the process of sorting through my thoughts on all this to tell you the truth.  I am not saying I agree 100% with all of this, I am just saying that you should maybe give the other side of the argument a little more credit than gun = scary.  

I appreciate your thoughts.  And, sure, I can give them credit for thoughts other than "they look scary".  But no one wants to talk about it.  

Also, what do you mean by "can be targeted"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

Sure, but who gets to decide what the "basic fundamental premises" are?  You?  Me?  That's where the problem lies - you really believe that you can't discuss the topic without that?  I think we can.  Like I said, all handguns were designed to kill people - just like the AR-15.  Can you have a discussion about handguns?

If we can’t agree, on a fundamental level, that the AR-15 was designed to kill more people quickly and Efficiently than a handgun than we can’t have any real discussion on this topic.  It’s either a bad faith discussion or we are so far apart there is no common middle. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

I appreciate your thoughts.  And, sure, I can give them credit for thoughts other than "they look scary".  But no one wants to talk about it.  

Also, what do you mean by "can be targeted"?

They are open for regulation, bannings, etc..  unlike handguns.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, dkp993 said:

If we can’t agree, on a fundamental level, that the AR-15 was designed to kill more people quickly and Efficiently than a handgun than we can’t have any real discussion on this topic.  It’s either a bad faith discussion or we are so far apart there is no common middle. 

Hang on - I never said that I disagreed with the intent behind the design.  I merely said that I don't care what the intent was or I just don't give it as much weight.  That's not bad faith.

So, just to clarify, your whole point to banning the AR-15 is because the intent was to kill people?  Do I have that correct?  That's your only, or main, argument?

Edited by BladeRunner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, KarmaPolice said:

They are open for regulation, bannings, etc..  unlike handguns.  

Thanks.  Why can't handguns be targeted?

I think that's the whole point for must pro-gun - it won't stop at just the AR-15.  In all reality, IMO, the "gun control" crowd doesn't really want gun control - they want to ban them outright and get rid of the 2nd amendment.

That's why I draw the line.  History alone shows that it will never be enough until they are all gone.  You give them an inch and then they want a mile.

Edited by BladeRunner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BladeRunner said:

Sure, but who gets to decide what the "basic fundamental premises" are?  You?  Me?  That's where the problem lies - you really believe that you can't discuss the topic without that?  I think we can.  Like I said, all handguns were designed to kill people - just like the AR-15.  Can you have a discussion about handguns?

This is where the whole "a gun is just a tool similar to a knife, baseball bat or hammer" argument fails for me and why we need to treat gun regulation differently.  Guns were made specifically to kill efficiently.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dickies said:

This is where the whole "a gun is just a tool similar to a knife, baseball bat or hammer" argument fails for me and why we need to treat gun regulation differently.  Guns were made specifically to kill efficiently.

Of course.  But it IS a tool - a tool to kill.  Whether it's humans, animals or bad analogies.  It doesn't work without a human being pulling the trigger.

Is a bat a tool? Sure.  It's a tool used to hit a small, leather-clad ball. Can it kill?  Of course - just not as much as a gun.  And we already do treat guns differently. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

Hang on - I never said that I disagreed with the intent behind the design.  I merely said that I don't care what the intent was or I just don't give it as much weight.  That's not bad faith.

So, just to clarify, your whole point to banning the AR-15 is because the intent was to kill people?  Do I have that correct?  That's your only, or main, argument?

No, my argument is it’s a weapon of war that serves no purpose in the hands of average Americans. Now some average Americas have designated a purpose for the gun (hunting, home protection, turkey hunting, or whatever) but doesn’t mean that’s it purpose.  It’s design matters because that’s what it was built to do. Just like claymore mines have no business in the average Americans home defense plan no matter how much they want it to be.  

“Arms” have evolved so far beyond what our foundation fathers could even fathom that lines need to be drawn (and they have been).  AR-15 should be behind that line imo.  

And remember I’m pro gun ownership. My line is different then yours for all the reasons I’ve laid out here and the previous pages.  Your line is your opinion and your right to believe, I know I won’t be changing that option, but to act as if the design doesn’t matter is in bad faith imo.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, dkp993 said:

No, my argument is it’s a weapon of war that serves no purpose in the hands of average Americans. Now some average Americas have designated a purpose for the gun (hunting, home protection, turkey hunting, or whatever) but doesn’t mean that’s it purpose.  It’s design matters because that’s what it was built to do. Just like claymore mines have no business in the average Americans home defense plan no matter how much they want it to be.  

“Arms” have evolved so far beyond what our foundation fathers could even fathom that lines need to be drawn (and they have been).  AR-15 should be behind that line imo.  

And remember I’m pro gun ownership. My line is different then yours for all the reasons I’ve laid out here and the previous pages.  Your line is your opinion and your right to believe, I know I won’t be changing that option, but to act as if the design doesn’t matter is in bad faith imo.  

What about handguns?  Does the design matter on them?  Because those were designed to kill as well.

Edited by BladeRunner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, BladeRunner said:

What about handguns?  Does the design matter on them?  Because those were designed to kill as well.

Those questions work both ways because we have 2A. What about fully automatic weapons?  How about rocket launchers (that's just a modified/evolved version of a gun)?  How about a tank (its just a big gun on wheels)?  There needs to be a line, that's what were discussing.  Re: the line- see my last post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

What about handguns?  Does the design matter on them?  Because those were designed to kill as well.

Ugh.   It’s really impossible to discuss gun control with people that don’t understand our laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would genuinely like to go throw some grenades in the desert.   That would be awesome.  Why can’t I do that?   I don’t see the difference. 
I can throw rocks in the desert but that is not as fun.  But some have established that rock = ar-15 and since I’m not throwing the rock or the grenade at a person my rights are being infringed because I can’t buy them at a store. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, -fish- said:

Ugh.   It’s really impossible to discuss gun control with people that don’t understand our laws.

Yeah. Let me know when you brush up on them and then we'll talk.  Until then, you can sit this one out since it's obvious you aren't interested in actual discussion.

Edited by BladeRunner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dkp993 said:

Those questions work both ways because we have 2A. What about fully automatic weapons?  How about rocket launchers (that's just a modified/evolved version of a gun)?  How about a tank (its just a big gun on wheels)?  There needs to be a line, that's what were discussing.  Re: the line- see my last post.

Handguns and rifles are more similar than our tanks and rocket launchers.

You're comparing apples to oranges when you start bringing in rocket launchers and tanks.  

Edited by BladeRunner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, growlers said:

I would genuinely like to go throw some grenades in the desert.   That would be awesome.  Why can’t I do that?   I don’t see the difference. 
I can throw rocks in the desert but that is not as fun.  But some have established that rock = ar-15 and since I’m not throwing the rock or the grenade at a person my rights are being infringed because I can’t buy them at a store. 

Is this all you guys like to do? Take arguments out of context?  It's absurd.

Based on the last couple of posts it's not the pro gun crowd that's being unreasonable.

Edited by BladeRunner
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BladeRunner said:

Handguns and rifles are more similar than our tanks and rocket launchers.

You're comparing apples to oranges when you start bringing in rocket launchers and tanks.  

Again missed point.  There are lines.  One could argue handguns and rifles are apples to oranges.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BladeRunner said:

Whenever you guys want to have an actual conversation about guns let me know.

If you just want to demonize the opposition and make ridiculous assertions then I'll just let you to yourselves.

 

This is exactly like I said to start this conversation. You have no interest in a discussion. You just want to convince everybody of your viewpoint.  I’m not saying I’m any better, as I’m pretty well thought out and convicted in my viewpoint.  But it’s why I said this was useless with SC.  This has all just been version 37 of the same other 36 times we “discussed” this here.  It would just be nice if your side to the “discussion” would at least own they have no desire to change their POV.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

Is this all you guys like to do? Take arguments out of context?  It's absurd.

Based on the last couple of posts it's not the pro gun crowd that's being unreasonable.

I am basically a lurker here but I believe there was pages of assertion from some in the pro- gun crowd that cars are also deadly weapons and equating banning ar-15s to banning cars.    I think that idea is way more loony than my argument  that if it reasonable for me to buy an ar-15 that it is reasonable for me to buy a grenade. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

Appeal to emotion is not a valid debate tactic.  Being disingenuous isn't either.

Did you read the article that you responded with this to?

it really was quite devoid of “emotion “, most of it described a physicians experience with the difference between high and low velocity bullet injuries. Actually the narrative at the end spot on describes my opinions on the subject. It’s a really good article. 

It’s impossible to discuss the topic with you guys.  I bring up the October 1 shooter, and told it’s somehow not relevant to the discussion.   It was the largest mass shooting in United States history and it was done from the 32nd floor of a hotel across a street with AR-15s and I’m told that the shooter would have killed the same number of people with a handgun or a knife.  Someone posts this article which gives the experience of a physician and it’s “emotional”.  You guys just regurgitate NRA taking points about mental illness over and over.   Then it turns out the October 1 shooter was never diagnosed as being mentally ill. Background checks are favored by what, 85% of Americans, yet the NRA and the republicans they pay off fight against them. 

And then we are told we are told WE are the ones being disingenuous.  
 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

Hey, @Stealthycat is the guy you want on your side.  

As far as killings go, I agree in general that if people don't have guns they would find other things to kill people with.  Y'know, like they do in England with the massive amount of knife attacks.

And a gun IS a tool like anything else.  People kill people, guns don't kill people.

This is the crux of why so many of us get apoplectic with the pro AR-15 argument. 
nobody with a knife kills 58 people across the street. Nonsense illogical opinion. Likely straight from some NRA talking point guide. 
If these criminals/terrorists in England had access to AR-15s those incidents would be a lot worse and many more shot and killed on average. Just like ........wait for it........USA#1
 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, dkp993 said:

No, my argument is it’s a weapon of war that serves no purpose in the hands of average Americans. ...

“Arms” have evolved so far beyond what our foundation fathers could even fathom that lines need to be drawn (and they have been).  AR-15 should be behind that line imo.  

And remember I’m pro gun ownership. ...

 

I posited this to someone else in the thread earlier.

How about a simple trade.

All handguns would be illegal to own period except for specific exemptions. In exchange, all MBRs ( Main Battle Rifles), barring a few exceptions, would be legal as per actual military specifications.

Handguns:

Exemptions would be for current and active law enforcement and military as per their role and duties. Also for any who have served in law enforcement and/or military for 20 years either solely or combined. If you've walked a beat and protected your city as a cop for 20 years or more, you've earned the right to keep your handgun. If you've given service and retired from the military and done your duty in good standing, you get to keep your handguns. Armored car drivers, some private security elements, there would be some practical exceptions.

MBRS:

All weapons must be full stock, no folding stocks/no sliding stocks/no collapsible stocks/no suppressors. No bullpups ( Immediately turfs the SA80, FAMAS and Steyr Aug) . No underside grenade launchers. Everything else though runs through as military spec. No restriction on magazine size. No restriction on bursts settings. No restrictions on bayonets. All weapons must conform to being a tried and true MBR that was in service at some point for some nation. For example the FN FAL. Full stocked Chinese Type 56 ( AK clone). The HK G3 is tried and true. M16A2 and M16A4. This fulfills the requirement to meet practical 2A. The Revolutionary War did not have rank and file soldiers being issued pistols on a regular basis. Some had their own. Officers had some. But they had MBRs.

If you turn in your handgun, you are given in trade surplus M16A2s still in mass storage. You don't sell your handgun, you trade it in for an MBR. Incoming handguns are used for military/law enforcement purposes/reserved armory holds.

I would prefer to keep all my guns. But if push came to shove, and believed the psychotic radical left woked out cancel culture manlets were coming for all our guns, and leave us with nothing but muzzleloaders, I'd rather trade my pistols to keep my MBRs.

The majority of gun violence happens with handguns. No handguns equals a reduction in gun related crime and violence. If someone is caught with an illegal handgun, then immediately stripped of US citizenship, stripped of all assets ( given to support local schools/parks/libraries/etc) and deported. This will clear the streets of some of the criminal element. Any country that takes US grain as food support/goodwill/humanitarian aid will take these deportees as part of the deal. They aren't US citizens anymore, do what you want to them. My guess is they will be enslaved or executed on the spot. Which is OK with me. If you want to be a drive by shooting criminal, good luck getting stabbed to death in a dark alley in a Third World hell hole. In fact, let's send all of our worst criminal elements this way, hard to complain about crime in the US when most of the hardened criminals have had their throats cuts outside of American soil. Wanna carjack someone with a Glock? OK, lose everything and lose your rights as an American and get stabbed right through the eye and end up in an unmarked foreign mass grave. Or being grinded down into cans of dogfood, I really don't care.  That's justice in my book.

Mostly I'd make the trade to shut people up. I gave up my handguns, so shut up. Leave the rest of my guns alone. The main argument that bothers many Pro 2A about AR15s is it looks like a pathway to simply go after all guns. I mean technically if they ban all guns except muzzleloaders and single barred shotguns, the radical left can technically say they didn't violate the Second Amendment, i.e they didn't take "all guns" away.

I can see an argument against a more easily concealable platform with a high rate of fire, however I don't see that same argument flying for a battle tested full length/full stock M16A2.

Anti 2A can't take all guns without all this mess. Pro 2A can't keep all guns without all this mess. So the only thing left is some kind of trade.

Would you make this trade?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

5 people killed in South Carolina.

 

NY Times seizes opportunity to look ridiculous again. Well at least to anybody that can see past their own nose. 

I don’t know what aspect of that article you are referring to as being ridiculous. This seems like news to report. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, growlers said:

I don’t know what aspect of that article you are referring to as being ridiculous. This seems like news to report. 

Probably that they brought up other shootings.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, parasaurolophus said:

5 people killed in South Carolina.

 

NY Times seizes opportunity to look ridiculous again. Well at least to anybody that can see past their own nose. 

I have a subscription for the X-word puzzles and I get my dad hard copies for Christmas every year. My to-the-right brother won't split the cost. I used to think he was nuts, now a bit less so.

At least the Post calls it what it is: Mass Shooting

And how is this relevant from the Times?
 

Quote

South Carolina is where a 21-year-old white man fatally shot nine people in 2015, at a landmark Black church in the city of Charleston.

 

Edited by Gawain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, growlers said:

I am basically a lurker here but I believe there was pages of assertion from some in the pro- gun crowd that cars are also deadly weapons and equating banning ar-15s to banning cars.    I think that idea is way more loony than my argument  that if it reasonable for me to buy an ar-15 that it is reasonable for me to buy a grenade. 

That is an illogical argument, but there are a lot of people who should neither own guns or drive cars, but they currently can do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Kal El said:

That is an illogical argument, but there are a lot of people who should neither own guns or drive cars, but they currently can do so.

At least you need a license, registration, insurance and take a test to drive a car 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, growlers said:

At least you need a license, registration, insurance and take a test to drive a car 

There is a hunter’s safety course to get a hunting license, but there definitely should be something for casual gun owners as well. I love target shooting and clay shooting, but there are a lot of people who ruin gun ownership for the rest of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, -fish- said:

I'm willing to bet that people that are willing to ignore statistics

100% winning bet right there 

Biden is going to put for an Executive Order focusing on a very very small % of the violence - totally ignoring statistics. bet on it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

100% winning bet right there 

Biden is going to put for an Executive Order focusing on a very very small % of the violence - totally ignoring statistics. bet on it

I'm guessing that developing regulations for  "ghost guns" and pistols modified into rifles are a very small percentage.   But there is only so much that one can really do with an executive order.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, growlers said:

Of course I am taking the most horrific example, it is a thread about mass shootings.  Should we leave this one out for some reason?

The link above answers all your "unknowable" questions about the type of guns he used.     He didn't use a turkey gun.   You can even masturbate to the pictures of the guns if you would like.

If he didn't have access to these guns he couldn't have killed so many people.    It is as simple as that.   If we allowed rocket launchers to be sold I have no doubt he would have successfully used those to blow up the jet fuel tankers instead of unsuccessfully shooting them with his AR-15 to cause more carnage.

He was possibly the rarest exception in our history on who kills people - so yeah, that you chose him is odd

"if he didn't have access to guns" - what does that even mean? You know he was a millionaire and a pilot right? He could have flown an airplane into that concert and then what, you'd be calling for plane bans or? 

see this goes back to   "common sense" gun laws - and we have them

we have common sense drunk driving laws, when a person DUI's and kills someone, that's just accepted and no big deal right? We don't ban ban ban in a free society where an exceptionally small % of people do stuff wrong - that's not a free society at all is it ?

its not gun owners fault Paddock did what he did. its not Mandalay's. Its not the concert, its not the car Paddock drove there in or the luggage he smuggled the guns to his room in or the ammo company that made the ammunition. 

the fault is on Paddock 

 

what could have been done to stop him ?   truthfully nothing - he planned it meticulously. Had the Mandalay has armed guards to smash his door in faster that would have helped. If they'd have checked every bag coming in -that might have caught him but he'd have planned for all that anyway

do you not see that?  these evil people are going to do what they do - anti-gun people don't want to stop the murders or the deaths, they have no plan to stop the evil people. They just want them to use something else besides a gun

google search - key words "beaten to death" ..... its not the object that's the problem, never has been

https://www.google.com/search?q=beaten+to+death&rlz=1C1ONGR_enUS935US935&sxsrf=ALeKk034KarGBriu4NC1014Yw7O2nFL3iQ:1617896167405&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiDi93y_O7vAhXRJzQIHYZmBnAQ_AUoAnoECAEQBA

 

 

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, -fish- said:

SC has made this claim dozens of times.   He claims a gun is nothing more than a tool, and if guns were taken away there would be an equal amount of mass killings with knives or baseball bats.

Sorry, bud.  You're stuck with the guy.

no, I've never made that claim at all in the context you're using

I have never said guns are the same as bricks and tools don't differ

what I have said is that people are going to murder people if they choose to - I don't want to shift people from killing with rifles to killing with handguns to killing with shotguns ........ I want to stop the people wanting to kill others.

why liberals don't want to do that baffles me

 

  • Love 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, dkp993 said:

 I generally want everyone on my side.  Even crazy people, if they're on your side they're not against you.  🤷‍♂️   *(and I am absolutely not calling SC crazy so please don't conflate the 2.  No insults being hurdled here)

You say this but if you can't be honest about how much easier it is to kill large groups of people quickly with and AR vs. a knife there's no "honest" conversation going on here.

can we agree its not guns that's the problem ?

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_stabbing      https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/mass-murder-without-guns/     https://www.cbsnews.com/video/knife-attack-kills-dozens-in-southwest-china/

 

people text and mass kill, DUI and mass kill, 9-11 was a plane and mass kill, OKC was a bomb and mass kill ............ 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16394919/

The United States twenty-year experience with bombing incidents: implications for terrorism preparedness and medical response

We conducted a retrospective analysis of the number of incidents, injuries, and deaths because of explosive, incendiary, premature, and attempted bombings from January 1983 to December 2002.

Results: In the United States, 36,110 bombing incidents, 5,931 injuries, and 699 deaths were reported. There were 21,237 (58.8%) explosive bombings, 6,185 (17.1%) incendiary bombings, 1,107 (3.1%) premature bombings, and 7,581 (21.0%) attempted bombings.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, KarmaPolice said:

I am for sure not downplaying 670 people losing their lives, but you don't think most people would be happy to exchange stats with England? 

its not that simple

you're have to change freedoms with England too - you want to do that?  do you know about their knife laws ?

https://www.gov.uk/buying-carrying-knives#:~:text=Basic laws on knives,3 inches long or less&text=use any knife in a threatening way (even a legal knife)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, KarmaPolice said:

I think SC has said he takes his to the gym or wherever he plays racquetball.  

10 people at the King Soopers in Boulder would have liked me to have been there with my concealed weapon ....... probably a few theatres, Post Offices, schools and concerts, churches etc where people would have really appreciated someone being there with a gun to stop the crazies before the police showed

like the church people in Texas did

 

funny - I've posted that multiple times ..... crickets. Ya'll don't want to even acknowledge events like that. Why ?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

WTH is an "Assault Weapon"?  Please tell me.

they won't tell you but I will

 

an "assault" weapon is whatever the liberal anti-gun left define it as - that's what it is - and if its your turkey hunting shogun, if its your 1970 Belgium Browning with a magazine, if its your scary looking AR .22 ............ so be it, they'll just say well, you don't REALLY need that anyway

 

I challenge people here who don't know guns to actually READ the laws ............. they ban many many guns that are not AR15 platform. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, KarmaPolice said:

My impression is that people aren't talking about ARs because they "look scary", it's because:

1.  They have been used in high profile mass shootings

2.  They can be targeted, unlike handguns

3.  They don't believe they have a use outside of collecting and sport.  

4.  They can be targeted and gun owners are still left with guns (in the off chance an actual ban would happen - i doubt it).

and "they" are wrong on all 4 counts - because "they" don't take the time to educate themselves, they just go with what CNN says

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, dkp993 said:

If we can’t agree, on a fundamental level, that the AR-15 was designed to kill more people quickly and Efficiently than a handgun than we can’t have any real discussion on this topic.  It’s either a bad faith discussion or we are so far apart there is no common middle. 

the AR's with the fully auto option right ?

question - is a semi-auto rifle with a 5 or 10 round capacity any more or less dangerous because of how it looks ?

honest answer please

of course there are variables .... a semi-auto .22 is different than a semi-auto .223 or a semi-auto .308 right ? you know the differences I'm sure but for simplicity .... semi-auto with a 10- round capacity is the same regardless of the housing its set into right ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

can we agree its not guns that's the problem ?

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_stabbing      https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/mass-murder-without-guns/     https://www.cbsnews.com/video/knife-attack-kills-dozens-in-southwest-china/

 

people text and mass kill, DUI and mass kill, 9-11 was a plane and mass kill, OKC was a bomb and mass kill ............ 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16394919/

The United States twenty-year experience with bombing incidents: implications for terrorism preparedness and medical response

We conducted a retrospective analysis of the number of incidents, injuries, and deaths because of explosive, incendiary, premature, and attempted bombings from January 1983 to December 2002.

Results: In the United States, 36,110 bombing incidents, 5,931 injuries, and 699 deaths were reported. There were 21,237 (58.8%) explosive bombings, 6,185 (17.1%) incendiary bombings, 1,107 (3.1%) premature bombings, and 7,581 (21.0%) attempted bombings.

 

 

 

 

Yet after these events the US passed laws, policies and security measures to help try to prevent them in the future.  

Edited by belljr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, growlers said:

I don’t know what aspect of that article you are referring to as being ridiculous. This seems like news to report. 

It has now been removed, but gawain quoted it above. 

Reporting on a mass shooting and not mentioning the race of the shooter(which is totally fine and when reporting a tragedy like this race should be omitted), but making sure to bring up a past shooting and specifically mentioning the race was an obvious move.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, belljr said:

Yet after these events the US passed laws, policies and security measures to help prevent them in the future.  

we've passed very few knife laws

what laws on bombs have been passed in the last decade other than don't bomb people? maybe since OKC the large purchased of fertilizer to be loaded into a UHAUL truck ?

but there have been no infringements on the citizens of the USA because of the knives and bombs and deaths like that ............. have there? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sick of the shootings. I have no idea the right answer to solve it.

Things like defending the Kyle Rittenhouse kid to the point of making him basically a hero and coming up with mad statistics about unrelated topics doesn't make me optimistic we'll ever get to any solutions though. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

we've passed very few knife laws

what laws on bombs have been passed in the last decade other than don't bomb people? maybe since OKC the large purchased of fertilizer to be loaded into a UHAUL truck ?

but there have been no infringements on the citizens of the USA because of the knives and bombs and deaths like that ............. have there? 

Let's start with 9/11 and work backwards...

Do you support the patriot act?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just watched King Joe ... 

the Fed Govt is horrible at doing anything with databases - fact

these murderers aren't using ghost guns and kits and arm braces

they mention all the people dying of murders --- but they don't mention the things they're passing an EO doesn't impact hardly any of those 

 

 

Link to comment
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...