Stealthycat
Footballguy
did you find it interesting ?Yenrub said:
that handguns were used so much ? how people acquired their guns ?
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Mass Shootings Thread (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter squistion
- Start date
- Status
that handguns were used so much ? how people acquired their guns ?
Stealthycat
Footballguy
A Russian MP says the weapon used was a semi-automatic shotgun - a type popular among hunters. Reports say Galyaviev had a license for it.-fish- said:
The same type of gun was used by a teenager, who killed 20 people at a technical college in the city of Kerch in Russian-annexed Crimea in 2018, then shot himself.
Thank you for proving the progressive gun control agenda .... just as I've said .... Govt comes for semi-auto rifles, then semi-auto handguns then - semi-auto shotguns. the "bans" in Russia didn't stop people from murdering, they simply pushed people to use different weapons
That's a massive failure to address the real problem - typical and sad
-fish-
Footballguy
more lies.
anyway, true facts: new gun control law is that in addition to psychological evaluation before purchasing certain guns gun owners would be limited to first purchasing a smooth-bore shotgun and would need to safely own it for a period of time before purchasing another shotgun or rifle.
Yenrub
Footballguy
Stealthycat
Footballguy
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57079367
why can't you admit the facts?
your gun control love laws would ban people from going out and buying a semi-auto shotgun to goose hunt, turkey hunt, dove hunt ....
I thought Democrats promised never to come after the hunting guns? yeah ... right
Stealthycat
Footballguy
most people have no idea handguns are the primary guns uses in mass killings and most believe the anti-gun spuke that Democrats say about "gunshow loopholes" and "assault weapons" and how these wacko get their guns
I bet -fish- didn't even click the link
Both of you: When you quote something, please add a link.
When you disagree, don't just call the other person a liar. Use links to back up what you're saying.
Thanks.
Yenrub
Footballguy
I can't speak for fish or anyone else but my guess is that most people know that guns are used in most of the mass killings. I'm pretty sure you won't find many similar articles for different tools.
“Where did they get the hammer? A comprehensive look at Colorado’s history of public hammer violence”
“Where did they get the golf club? A comprehensive look at Colorado’s history of public golf club violence”
JAA
Footballguy
Makes me think of the video I cannot find, the one of what an mass shooting in the office would look like if the shooter was using a colonial days rifle.
-fish-
Footballguy
Unfortunately, I can't link to SC's unsupported falsehoods. He makes up generalities about liberals banning guns and the results of those imaginary actions. When someone just makes something up out of whole cloth, it is a lie. There is no other way to describe it. He can't link to facts because he's making things up out of his perception of "liberal gun grabs" that have never happened. I can't prove a negative as to these false generalities. All I can do is point out the fact that it's false. You'll note that in addition to my correction of his lie, I posted the actual fact of what the Russian action was.
I suppose I could link to the history of gun laws in all 50 states and cross-reference to the weapons used in every mass shooting to prove that what he's claiming has never happened, but that seems fairly ridiculous in response to a statement that's just a blatant fiction.
I have never called SC a liar. I have correctly and accurately pointed out his "facts" to be lies. He may just be innocently ignorant of the truth, but that doesn't change the fact that what he is saying is an absolute lie. In most cases, he's repeating propaganda.
If I tell you the sky is orange, I may just be color blind. But the statement is no less false.
Last edited by a moderator:
Stealthycat
Footballguy
actually there are breakdowns in weapons used in most murders
that's why you'll see people saying more people are beaten to death/strangled every year than are killed with semi-auto rifles - its true
and, this is my point ..... take away fully auto and people use semi-auto, take away semi-auto and people use revolvers', take away revolvers and people use single shot, take away single shot and people use knives ............. yet time and again, Democrats swear they'll not take hunting weapons right ?
-fish- is very anti-gun, and he posted just above the process that'll be used in Russia now ................ they're going to try and take people hunting weapons, and that slippery slope is what we've talked about for dozens of pages and people don't think its real :(
Stealthycat
Footballguy
I link all the time to support my ideas and views
I try to never name call
I don't like being called a liar / aka posting lies
per this link ( tied to -fish- posting of the shooting in Russia)
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-57079367
now, -fish- responded with "Anyway, true facts: new gun control law is that in addition to psychological evaluation before purchasing certain guns gun owners would be limited to first purchasing a smooth-bore shotgun and would need to safely own it for a period of time before purchasing another shotgun or rifle."
now, Democrats have said for years they'll not take hunting guns, right ?
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/12/politics/beto-orourke-guns-democratic-debate/index.html
in that CNN article is says
"
“It depends on whether or not the Democrats want to take your guns away, because there’s a possibility that this is just a ploy to take your guns away or whether or not it’s meaningful,” he told reporters at the White House. “If it’s meaningful we’ll make a deal. If this is movement by the Democrats to take your guns away, then it’s never going to happen because we’re never going to let that happen. We will always be there for our Second Amendment.”
Democratic presidential candidates and presidents have been arguing, during that whole time, that they absolutely would not. "
I think we all know Democrats in general are anti-gun and how can I link to that?
https://elections.bradyunited.org/candidates
all Democrats supported by BradyUnited
https://www.thetrace.org/2020/09/nra-grades-2020-election/
NRA gradings
https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/the-issues/preventing-gun-violence/
Democrat platforms
"Democrats believe that we can reduce gun violence while respecting the rights of responsible gun owners"
I want to key in on that last posted sentence.
Democrats / liberals / anti-gun people ............. they'll all say "not coming for your gun" ........ its been posted over and over on these forums and yet when i show how my son's turkey hunting shotgun will be banned if certain worded legislation came to our home town of Cabot AR Joe .... I have show it would be illegal.
Russia is doing what Governments do that have total control of its people. they ban, ban, ban more and continue to ban with NO respect to responsible gun owners. In just the past few years, we've seen bump stock bans, pushes to ban silencers and the arm stabilizer things, we've seen the push to ban drum mag's and cities all out passing massive gun bans and each time a wacko does something to harm others, Democrats are the first to rally to the tragedy and call for more bans
That's a fact too
Stealthycat
Footballguy
That's not at all what I asked people to do. And honestly kind of discouraging you'd say that's what I want.
Please let's drop this and please let's all try to be cool. When I talk about the giant downsides of a forum, and the struggles of trying to keep it on the rails, this kind of thing is what I'm talking about. Please let's drop and move on.
Yenrub
Footballguy
I have been hearing some version of “the democrats are going to take our guns away” for my whole life (I’m in my 50’s), typically during the presidential election cycles. I don’t recall taking guns away ever coming to fruition. It’s not something that I worry about, it’s just a phrase used to get people to vote for one party and not the other.
-fish-
Footballguy
The Z Machine
Footballguy
Why can't we as a society (and hence our elected officials) simply decide that enough is enough and most guns don't have a place in modern society?
-fish-
Footballguy
Many societies have. We're stuck with a questionable interpretation of the second amendment that places the right to gun ownership over human life. Plus due to nearly unrestricted lobbying and horrible campaign finance laws, we can't pass basic laws that even a supermajority of gun owners want, like red flag laws or expanded background checks.
BladeRunner
Footballguy
Because as a modern society there is more than just you and your feelings to consider. Guns do have a place.
BladeRunner
Footballguy
The Z Machine
Footballguy
You're right. We should consider all the other negative effects of guns in society like murder and suicide rates.
BladeRunner
Footballguy
Suicide rates? Sure. Then we need to take a long hard look at razor blades, pharmaceuticals, rope and bridges to see if they should be part of a modern society too.
Let's look at all weapons used in murders too.
The Z Machine
Footballguy
About 75% of murders and 50% of suicides are by firearm. We can look at the other means, sure, but let's take a pareto approach and go after the biggest contribution first, eh?Suicide rates? Sure. Then we need to take a long hard look at razor blades, pharmaceuticals, rope and bridges to see if they should be part of a modern society too.
Let's look at all weapons used in murders too.
KarmaPolice
Footballguy
I love how you always frame this as though even if current proposals go through you will have to hunt with your bare hands or something. You will still have guns to hunt, just maybe not the ones you exactly want.
-fish-
Footballguy
unfortunately, you quoted SC and he lied about me. guess I'll risk the banhammer. Im not anti-gun, and have never advocated any gun ban. i have worked on gun legislation, and I'm in favor of licensing, training, safe storage, red flag laws, expanded background checks, gun registry, tracking of guns used in crimes, and loss of gun ownership rights for people convicted of stalking and domestic violence. nearly all of these have majority support even among gun owners.
but he just cant help himself about saying things that are blantanly untrue. there has never been a gun ban that has included confiscation. so his son's turkey gun is safe.
what he's claiming about the new regulations in russia in response to the most recent school shooting is 100% false. but so are almost all of his posts.
@Joe Bryantyou can tell me if this is out of bounds, but it seems like lying about other posters should be a problem, not stating facts.
but he just cant help himself about saying things that are blantanly untrue. there has never been a gun ban that has included confiscation. so his son's turkey gun is safe.
what he's claiming about the new regulations in russia in response to the most recent school shooting is 100% false. but so are almost all of his posts.
@Joe Bryantyou can tell me if this is out of bounds, but it seems like lying about other posters should be a problem, not stating facts.
Last edited by a moderator:
One last time. Please drop it.
If you have a point, please make the point and back it up.
Please do it without accusing others here of lying.
And for people wondering why I'm so discouraged with the forums, it's stuff like this spending time trying to smooth everything over so people on all sides aren't upset.
I've asked the moderators to do less suspending as we've talked but that winds up with repeated back and forth and me asking people to drop things and them refusing and it's what will likely eventually cause the forum to close as I simply don't have the time.
It would be my preference to not shut it down but I'm running out of options.
I don't know the right answers. You've already accused me of
I only know I'm so sick of this. Please drop the calling people liars or the "almost all of his posts are 100% false" stuff.
Last edited by a moderator:
Stealthycat
Footballguy
literally take as in confiscations - not often, its done on red flag moves and of course, the fully auto military weapons were removed decades ago
but city laws absolutely ban citizens from owning certain guns - if not almost all guns
if I moved from Arkansas to Chicago tomorrow, I doubt any of my guns would be allowed there - do you consider than any kind of "taking away" ??
I remember giving up certain types of ammo (erroneously called cop killer bullets) .... bump stocks, silencers, age limits, background checks, now its the move on arm braces ... there is a long list of what gun owners have given
when reading the "assault" weapons bans .... you'll see that they cannot ban "assault" weapons because there are no such weapons. instead, they word these laws in such a way as to identify weapons that have certain traits and characteristics ...... like, if its semi-automatic, has a pistol grip and adjustable stock - it'll be banned
which is what I have by way of a 12 ga turkey hunting shotgun - in places "assault" weapons laws exists, my turkey hunting shotgun wouldn't be allowed
would you consider that a ban ?
Stealthycat
Footballguy
this is what gun control people say - I mean the USA could ban every gun and only allow flintlock muzzleloaders and still say " you will have guns to hunt with, just maybe not the ones you exactly want"
right ?
but I think anyone reasonable would see that such extremes is really a ban
ban = officially or legally prohibit / an official or legal prohibition /
if I can't have my semi-auto shotgun with the adjustable stock, fiber optic sights and pistol grip - its banned, aka not legal aka prohibited, right ?
can I remove all those things and it still be functional? sure - but what's the point in not allowing me those add-on's? if its still functional as a semi-auto shotgun, what was the point in banning the accessories to it ?
I go again back to my point from links like this
https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-laws/assault-weapons-in-california/
ASSAULT WEAPON RESTRICTIONS
there are a lot of errors in the words of that link - factually untrue things however what I've said about my son's turkey hunting shotgun is this
because of the way they wrote the above, many sporting shoguns would be illegal in CA
So lets say I book a Gould turkey hunt or Merriam in CA .... my question is can I bring the shotgun I have? The answer is no - its not allowed - its banned
Why? Because California considers it an assault weapon when it simply is a semi-auto shotgun and nothing more, nothing less
they write these all encompassing laws and say it won't affect sportsman and hunters and they absolutely DO
more from the link above
"A semiautomatic shotgun that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine;"
oooops that includes this
https://www.cheaperthandirt.com/savage-220-turkey-20-gauge-bolt-action-shotgun-22-barrel-2-round-box-magazine-picatinny-rail-mossy-oak-obsession-synthetic-stock-black-finish/FC-011356573834.html
and others like it
its not just California - cities have passed similar and judges have tossed out similar too - its been a fight for years and it doesn't look like it'll ever stop. While people are on semi-auto rifles that media shows and Democrats use to further their agenda, the same people totally ignore that vast majority of murders that people use guns, they're using handguns
Stealthycat
Footballguy
JAA
Footballguy
Lets not: https://www.sprc.org/scope/means-suicideSuicide rates? Sure. Then we need to take a long hard look at razor blades, pharmaceuticals, rope and bridges to see if they should be part of a modern society too.
Let's look at all weapons used in murders too.
Yenrub
Footballguy
I’ll speak specifically to your Chicago question because I know a little about gun ownership there (via relatives)
Nothing stopping you from owning a gun and keeping it in your home. So if you want to move from Arkansas to Chicago feel free to take your guns with you if that is what you want to do. If you want to leave your new house with your gun(s) you will need a conceal carry permit.
There is a waiting period to purchase a new gun and I think you must be 21 to buy a new gun.
The Z Machine
Footballguy
Long guns of more than 4 or 5 rounds. All handguns unless directly used for employment (police, private security, ranchers, etc.) or for authorized sport shooting competitions. All firearm possession should require licensing, training, and period safety certification.
Stealthycat
Footballguy
its deeper than that
IL
Chicago
Municipal Code of Chicago
CHAPTER 8-20 WEAPONS
https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/chicago/latest/chicago_il/0-0-0-2485609
(5) A semiautomatic shotgun that has one or more of the following:
(A) a folding, telescoping or detachable stock;
(B) a handgun grip;
(C) a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 5 rounds;
(D) a forward grip; or
(E) a grenade, flare or rocket launcher.
So again, my son has a 12 ga shotgun with a grip and a stock that matches "telescoping" above therefore, it would NOT be allowed in Chicago because according to their wordings, its an "assault weapon"
Do you agree ?
Stealthycat
Footballguy
wow
from what you defined above, you would take almost every gun i have that I use for varmint hunting, small game hunting and large game hunting and self defense
you'd leave me I think with only a single shot 20 ga
that's not a ban to you ?
FWIW, this is exactly the kind of posting I'm asking people to do.
State your point and add a link.
Then civilly engage the other side.
More of this please from everyone.
Yenrub
Footballguy
If your gun(s) fits their description and you aren't in the category below then you cannot own that gun in that city.
The Z Machine
Footballguy
I never said it wasn't a ban. This is my opinion on how to make American society better. Get guns out of society.
You need a rifle with a capacity larger than 5 rounds for hunting of small or large game? I'm not a hunter, but why do you NEED this?
-fish-
Footballguy
Are there a lot of turkeys wandering around in the Chicago city limits? A semi-auto shotgun used for turkey hunting can be owned by a resident of Chicago if it is stored outside the city limits...like where it is legal to hunt. No confiscation. Just a common sense law about where guns can be stored.
Yenrub
Footballguy
JAA
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Stealthycat
Footballguy
Yenrub
Footballguy
The 2nd amendment says we have the right to bear arms. The Chicago law does not prevent us from bearing arms.
Are there Turkey's to hunt in Chicago? Are we allowed to hunt any animals within the city limits?
I noticed that you change the subject from MASS killings to killings quite often. Why do you do that?
Last edited by a moderator:
-fish-
Footballguy
lets see a link to the number of crimes stopped by a "good guy with a gun" and not to Kleck, who admits he's wrong, or John Lott, whose numbers have been debunked.
then compare that with the number of times guns are stolen from "good guys with a gun" or how often gun ownership results in a shooting of the gun owner or a member of their household.
"good guy with a gun" is a myth and a favorite NRA talking point.
Since 1997 when 14 jurisdictions adopted concealed carry laws, gun crimes went up in every one of those states.
facts, not anecdotes: https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/guns-crime/reports/2019/04/24/468951/guns-lies-fear/
then compare that with the number of times guns are stolen from "good guys with a gun" or how often gun ownership results in a shooting of the gun owner or a member of their household.
"good guy with a gun" is a myth and a favorite NRA talking point.
Since 1997 when 14 jurisdictions adopted concealed carry laws, gun crimes went up in every one of those states.
facts, not anecdotes: https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/guns-crime/reports/2019/04/24/468951/guns-lies-fear/
BladeRunner
Footballguy
Center for American Progress? What? That's like getting the info directly from the DNC website.
-fish-
Footballguy
Harvard researchers debunk the "good guy with a gun"
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/
far more likely to be used illegally, to threaten members of your own household, or to cause a shooting of yourself or a member of your household.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/gun-threats-and-self-defense-gun-use-2/
far more likely to be used illegally, to threaten members of your own household, or to cause a shooting of yourself or a member of your household.
-fish-
Footballguy
the article has citations to each study and statistic. it doesn't matter what site hosts the article. the facts are what they are.
BladeRunner
Footballguy
Sure, I'll read it. But citing "facts" from the Center for American Progress website is like citing "facts" from DJT.
JAA
Footballguy
- Status
Similar threads
