Mass Shootings Thread

[Stealthycat]

20 hours ago, Yenrub said:

Thanks for the info

did you find it interesting ?

that handguns were used so much ? how people acquired their guns ?

[Stealthycat]

21 hours ago, -fish- said:

school shooting in Russia yesterday.  new gun control measures ordered today.

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.

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-]

1 hour ago, Stealthycat said:

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.

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

 

 

 

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]

2 hours ago, Stealthycat said:

did you find it interesting ?

that handguns were used so much ? how people acquired their guns ?

Not particularly 

[Stealthycat]

54 minutes ago, -fish- said:

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.

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]

5 minutes ago, Yenrub said:

Not particularly 

 

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

[Joe Bryant]

1 hour ago, -fish- said:

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.

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]

4 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

 

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

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]

11 minutes ago, Yenrub said:

31 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

 

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

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”

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-]

1 hour ago, Joe Bryant said:

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. 

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.

Edited May 12 by -fish-

[-fish-]

Your site, Joe.    I'll just put SC back on ignore.  

Edited May 12 by -fish-

[Stealthycat]

59 minutes ago, Yenrub said:

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”

 

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]

1 hour ago, Joe Bryant said:

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. 

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
 

Quote

 

A Russian MP says the weapon used was a semi-automatic shotgun - a type popular among hunters. Reports say Galyaviev had a licence for it.

School shootings are relatively rare in Russia, partly because there are strict gun ownership regulations

 

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]

22 minutes ago, -fish- said:

Your site, Joe.  You want people to be able to lie about people getting murdered, so be it.   I'll just put SC back on ignore.  

you really think that's what Joe Bryant is doing ?

wow

[Joe Bryant]

1 hour ago, -fish- said:

Your site, Joe.  You want people to be able to lie about people getting murdered, so be it.   I'll just put SC back on ignore.  

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]

2 hours ago, Stealthycat said:

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  

 

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-]

1 hour ago, Yenrub said:

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.

It has never happened.   

[The Z Machine]

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-]

23 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

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?

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]

33 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

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?

Because as a modern society there is more than just you and your feelings to consider.  Guns do have a place.  

[BladeRunner]

7 minutes ago, -fish- said:

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.   

Seems pretty straightforward to me: https://youtu.be/RpeUznIhgLU?t=12

[The Z Machine]

3 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

Because as a modern society there is more than just you and your feelings to consider.  Guns do have a place.  

You're right.  We should consider all the other negative effects of guns in society like murder and suicide rates. 

[BladeRunner]

Just now, The Z Machine said:

You're right.  We should consider all the other negative effects of guns in society like murder and suicide rates. 

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]

3 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

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. 

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?

[KarmaPolice]

4 hours ago, Stealthycat said:

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  

 

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-]

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.

 

Edited May 13 by -fish-

[Joe Bryant]

10 hours ago, -fish- said:

 

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.

 

 

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

Quote

You want people to be able to lie about people getting murdered, so be it. 

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. 

Edited May 13 by Joe Bryant

[Stealthycat]

16 hours ago, Yenrub said:

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.

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]

14 hours ago, KarmaPolice said:

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.  

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

Quote

A semiautomatic shotgun that has both a folding or telescoping stock, and a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, thumbhole stock, or vertical handgrip;

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]

15 hours ago, The Z Machine said:

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?

what are "most guns" to you ?

[JAA]

16 hours ago, BladeRunner said:

16 hours ago, The Z Machine said:

You're right.  We should consider all the other negative effects of guns in society like murder and suicide rates. 

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. 

Lets not:  https://www.sprc.org/scope/means-suicide

[Yenrub]

1 hour ago, Stealthycat said:

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 ?

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]

2 hours ago, Stealthycat said:

what are "most guns" to you ?

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]

1 hour ago, Yenrub said:

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.

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]

10 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

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.

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 ? 

[Joe Bryant]

6 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

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 ?

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]

36 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

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 ?

If your gun(s) fits their description and you aren't in the category below then you cannot own that gun in that city.

Quote

 This section shall not apply to corrections officers, members of the armed forces of the United States, or the organized militia of this or any other state, and peace officers, to the extent that any such person is otherwise authorized to acquire or possess assault weapons, and is acting within the scope of his duties, or to any person while engaged in the manufacturing, transportation or sale of assault weapons to people authorized to possess them under this section.

 

[The Z Machine]

36 minutes ago, Stealthycat said:

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 ? 

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-]

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]

On 5/12/2021 at 1:22 PM, JAA said:

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.

I think I found the video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LORVfnFtcH0

[JAA]

 

48 minutes ago, Yenrub said:

On 5/12/2021 at 1:22 PM, JAA said:

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.

I think I found the video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LORVfnFtcH0

Yup - thats the one!!

Edited May 13 by JAA

[Stealthycat]

2 hours ago, Yenrub said:

If your gun(s) fits their description and you aren't in the category below then you cannot own that gun in that city.

Quote

thank you - its a banned gun then in Chicago, right ?

literally just a 12 ga shotgun used for turkey hunting - banned in Chicago because since there are no "assault weapons" they had to create a broad definition that also included hunting guns, the one thing said over and over they're not going to do (pass legislation towards people's hunting guns)

if you're a non-hunter or non-gun owner, it doesn't affect you but for the people who own guns and hunt and fish, its really really important because we're being targeted and the same guns on those lists are what we use to hunt with, sport shooting with and self defense with and those laws have meant what in Chicago (gun/murders) ?

https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2021/4/1/22361767/chicago-police-department-crime-statistics-march-2021

Quote

 

Shootings and murders also rose this year. There were 706 shooting victims and 131 murders reported in the first three months of 2021, a steep rise from 2020, which saw 493 shooting victims and 98 murders over the same period.

Comparing March 2021 to March 2020 shows a similar increase. There were 298 shooting victims and 42 murders in March 2021, while there were 175 shooting victims and 28 murders in March 2020, according to the statistics.

Every metric for shootings and murders was higher in 2021 than in any of the years included in CPD’s report, which contained numbers going back to 2018.

 

 

Many cities suffer from violent crimes/murders and I have said a thousand times, its not the guns that's the problems, its not the weapons. 

https://www.npr.org/2021/01/06/953254623/massive-1-year-rise-in-homicide-rates-collided-with-the-pandemic-in-2020

At the end of 2020, Chicago police reported more than 750 murders, a jump of more than 50% compared with 2019. By mid-December, Los Angeles saw a 30% increase over the previous year with 322 homicides. There were 437 homicides in New York City by Dec. 20, nearly 40% more than the previous year.

 

My point is, all that gun control and banning of certain weapons and its resulted in what? We could go the way of banning just about every semi-auto and people would kill people with revolvers' and illegal guns. We could try and ban those, and people would murder with knives and bats and illegal weapons. trying to take away a criminals choice of weapon is absolute insanity to me especially when you're disarming legal law abiding citizens in the process

I've posted over and over instances of people using guns to stop crimes - and mostly those posts get ignored. NOBODY wants to acknowledge or discuss just how much crime is stopped with civilians owning guns. why ?

Almost every state has concealed carry, many have it with no permit required. Our states that have that, including Arkansas, has not seen a wild wild west scenario like we were told we'd see.

1) October 1, 1997 Pearl High School.

2) January 16, 2002 Appalachian School of Law.

3) July 25, 2014 “Gun Free” Mercy Fitzgerald Hospital where a patient at a psychiatric clinic killed his case worker at point blank range and then turned his gun on his doctor, Dr. Lee Silverman, striking him several times, before Dr. Silverman drew his own concealed handgun and pumped three rounds into the goblin.

4) December 9, 2007 New Life Church Shooting, Colorado Springs, Colorado.

5) July 7, 1999 National Shooting Club Santa Clara, California

6) December 17, 1991, Shoney’s Family Restaurant Anniston, Alabama. (Side-note: Happened just 2 months after the “Gun Free” Luby’s Massacre.)

7) July 13, 2009, at the Golden Food Market Shooting Richmond, Virginia

8 ) Aug 03, 2012 Peach House RV Shooting, Early, Texas

9) College Park, GA, May 4, 2009.

10) May 27th, 2010 AT&T store New York Mills, New York.

11) February 12, 2007 Trolley Square Shooting, Salt Lake City, Utah.

12) 25 May, 2008 Players Bar and Grill, Winnemucca NV Shooting.

13) April 24, 2012 Destiny Christian Center Shooting.

14) June 26th 2016 Playoffz nightclub Lyman, SC

 

The above are examples of concealed weapons people stopping more murders by criminals - I'm certain there are many many more and I doubt anyone had heard of any of the above.

[Yenrub]

1 hour ago, Stealthycat said:

thank you - its a banned gun then in Chicago, right ?

literally just a 12 ga shotgun used for turkey hunting - banned in Chicago because since there are no "assault weapons" they had to create a broad definition that also included hunting guns, the one thing said over and over they're not going to do (pass legislation towards people's hunting guns)

if you're a non-hunter or non-gun owner, it doesn't affect you but for the people who own guns and hunt and fish, its really really important because we're being targeted and the same guns on those lists are what we use to hunt with, sport shooting with and self defense with and those laws have meant what in Chicago (gun/murders) ?

https://chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2021/4/1/22361767/chicago-police-department-crime-statistics-march-2021

 

Many cities suffer from violent crimes/murders and I have said a thousand times, its not the guns that's the problems, its not the weapons. 

https://www.npr.org/2021/01/06/953254623/massive-1-year-rise-in-homicide-rates-collided-with-the-pandemic-in-2020

At the end of 2020, Chicago police reported more than 750 murders, a jump of more than 50% compared with 2019. By mid-December, Los Angeles saw a 30% increase over the previous year with 322 homicides. There were 437 homicides in New York City by Dec. 20, nearly 40% more than the previous year.

 

My point is, all that gun control and banning of certain weapons and its resulted in what? We could go the way of banning just about every semi-auto and people would kill people with revolvers' and illegal guns. We could try and ban those, and people would murder with knives and bats and illegal weapons. trying to take away a criminals choice of weapon is absolute insanity to me especially when you're disarming legal law abiding citizens in the process

I've posted over and over instances of people using guns to stop crimes - and mostly those posts get ignored. NOBODY wants to acknowledge or discuss just how much crime is stopped with civilians owning guns. why ?

Almost every state has concealed carry, many have it with no permit required. Our states that have that, including Arkansas, has not seen a wild wild west scenario like we were told we'd see.

1) October 1, 1997 Pearl High School.

2) January 16, 2002 Appalachian School of Law.

3) July 25, 2014 “Gun Free” Mercy Fitzgerald Hospital where a patient at a psychiatric clinic killed his case worker at point blank range and then turned his gun on his doctor, Dr. Lee Silverman, striking him several times, before Dr. Silverman drew his own concealed handgun and pumped three rounds into the goblin.

4) December 9, 2007 New Life Church Shooting, Colorado Springs, Colorado.

5) July 7, 1999 National Shooting Club Santa Clara, California

6) December 17, 1991, Shoney’s Family Restaurant Anniston, Alabama. (Side-note: Happened just 2 months after the “Gun Free” Luby’s Massacre.)

7) July 13, 2009, at the Golden Food Market Shooting Richmond, Virginia

8 ) Aug 03, 2012 Peach House RV Shooting, Early, Texas

9) College Park, GA, May 4, 2009.

10) May 27th, 2010 AT&T store New York Mills, New York.

11) February 12, 2007 Trolley Square Shooting, Salt Lake City, Utah.

12) 25 May, 2008 Players Bar and Grill, Winnemucca NV Shooting.

13) April 24, 2012 Destiny Christian Center Shooting.

14) June 26th 2016 Playoffz nightclub Lyman, SC

 

The above are examples of concealed weapons people stopping more murders by criminals - I'm certain there are many many more and I doubt anyone had heard of any of the above.

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?

Edited May 13 by Yenrub

[-fish-]

love the bats are as dangerous as guns argument.  lets see that link.

[-fish-]

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/

[BladeRunner]

1 minute ago, -fish- said:

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/

Center for American Progress?  What?  That's like getting the info directly from the DNC website. 

[-fish-]

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.

[-fish-]

1 minute ago, BladeRunner said:

Center for American Progress?  What?  That's like getting the info directly from the DNC website. 

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]

2 minutes ago, -fish- said:

the article has citations to each study and statistic.  it doesn't matter what site hosts the article.  the facts are what they are.

Sure, I'll read it.  But citing "facts" from the Center for American Progress website is like citing "facts" from DJT.

[JAA]

57 minutes ago, BladeRunner said:

1 hour ago, -fish- said:

the article has citations to each study and statistic.  it doesn't matter what site hosts the article.  the facts are what they are.

Sure, I'll read it.  But citing "facts" from the Center for American Progress website is like citing "facts" from DJT.

Fair feedback:  https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/center-for-american-progress/