What's new
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)

Status
Not open for further replies.
-fish- said:
it's really a silly narrative, anyway.  the GOP is losing urban areas countrywide and has been for years.  cities are generally going to have more crime than rural areas, and most larger cities are led by democrats because that's how the parties shake out.  correlation is not causation.

just another NRA talking point that falls apart when you apply facts. 
Click to expand...
Says the guy who spouts DNC talking points all day long.  :doh:

 
-fish- said:
aww, shucks.  no need to cherry pick.  he chose his metric.  #1 on the list, Republican-led city with loose gun laws: Mobile, Alabama.  

thanks Max!
Click to expand...
Um you're welcome...?

I don't even understand what weird level of this arguement we're on.

Are we saying which party has the elected mayor is responsible for the crime rate?

 
Max Power said:
Um you're welcome...?

I don't even understand what weird level of this arguement we're on.

Are we saying which party has the elected mayor is responsible for the crime rate?
Click to expand...
you tried blaming crime on democratic mayors in big cities.  your proof was miami and a link that shows Mobile as the worst city in the US.  you proved yourself wrong.

 
timschochet said:
Is it? The judge wrote that a bazooka can be banned under the Second Amendment but that an AR-15 cannot be banned under the Second Amendment. I honestly don’t understand the legal distinction here; can you explain it? 
Click to expand...
he's probably right under Heller and Miller.  the standard is common use.  AR-15's are incredibly popular and common at this point.  based on the standard created by the Supreme Court,  it's pretty likely that the SC will overturn a state ban on assault weapons in the near future.

 
-fish- said:
if by that you mean facts, sure.  some day maybe you'll say something interesting or original.  
Click to expand...
No, I mean DNC Talking PointsTM.  :doh:

And don't worry - people will never confuse your posts with facts.  It's almost as if you were hired by the DNC to be their spokesman.  I hope you were - at least you would be a paid shill instead of just a shill.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BladeRunner said:
No, I mean DNC Talking PointsTM.  :doh:

And don't worry - people will never confuse your posts with facts.  It's almost as if you were hired by the DNC to be their spokesman.  I hope you were - at least you would be a paid shill instead of just a shill.
Click to expand...
again, zero original thoughts.  nothing to contribute.  take a few days and try to come up with something clever.  

 
-fish- said:
again, zero original thoughts.  nothing to contribute.  take a few days and try to come up with something clever.  
Click to expand...
:potkettle:

Unpaid shill for the DNC points fingers about other posters not contributing and having zero original thoughts. :doh:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
-fish- said:
he's probably right under Heller and Miller.  the standard is common use.  AR-15's are incredibly popular and common at this point.  based on the standard created by the Supreme Court,  it's pretty likely that the SC will overturn a state ban on assault weapons in the near future.
Click to expand...
That standard doesn’t make logical sense to me but I am not a judge. 

 
timschochet said:
Is it? The judge wrote that a bazooka can be banned under the Second Amendment but that an AR-15 cannot be banned under the Second Amendment. I honestly don’t understand the legal distinction here; can you explain it? 
Click to expand...
Bazooka (/bəˈzuːkə/) is the common name for a man-portable recoilless anti-tank rocket launcher weapon, widely deployed by the United States Army, especially during World War II.

A semi-automatic rifle is a rifle that fires a single bullet with each pull of the trigger. 

do you understand now ?

Instead, the firearms deemed ‘assault weapons’ are fairly ordinary, popular, modern rifles. This is an average case about average guns used in average ways for average purposes.”

“One is to be forgiven if one is persuaded by news media and others that the nation is awash with murderous AR-15 assault rifles. The facts, however, do not support this hyperbole, and facts matter,” Benitez continued. “Federal Bureau of Investigation murder statistics do not track assault rifles, but they do show that killing by knife attack is far more common than murder by any kind of rifle. In California, murder by knife occurs seven times more often than murder by rifle. For example, according to F.B.I. statistics for 2019, California saw 252 people murdered with a knife, while 34 people were killed with some type of rifle – not necessarily an AR-15. A Californian is three times more likely to be murdered by an attacker’s bare hands, fists, or feet, than by his rifle. In 2018, the statistics were even more lopsided as California saw only 24 murders by some type of rifle. The same pattern can be observed across the nation.”
Click to expand...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Stealthycat said:
Bazooka (/bəˈzuːkə/) is the common name for a man-portable recoilless anti-tank rocket launcher weapon, widely deployed by the United States Army, especially during World War II.

A semi-automatic rifle is a rifle that fires a single bullet with each pull of the trigger. 

do you understand now ?
Click to expand...
No I don’t. 
 

First off, I don’t understand why there is any difference between “commonly owned” firearms and “uncommonly owned” firearms in terms of the government’s ability to regulate them as per the Second Amendment. It’s been explained to me that this was part of the Heller decision but I still don’t see why it makes any sense. 
 

Second, even if you apply this standard, an AR-15 is NOT a commonly owned firearm in the state of California. The ban has been in place for years. Those that possess AR-15s in California right now do so illegally. Therefore I don’t understand how the judge can argue that it’s in common usage in this state. 

 
timschochet said:
First off, I don’t understand why there is any difference between “commonly owned” firearms and “uncommonly owned” firearms in terms of the government’s ability to regulate them as per the Second Amendment. It’s been explained to me that this was part of the Heller decision but I still don’t see why it makes any sense.
Click to expand...
uncommon = nuclear warheads, grenades, landmines, missiles etc - war weapons

common owned = semi-automatic rifles that have been available in the USA since they were created. Single shots are also common, pump and lever action as well as bolt actions

Remember the links I posted that showed my son's turkey hunting shotgun as illegal with some of these stupid " assault weapon" laws ?

This judge got that

timschochet said:
Second, even if you apply this standard, an AR-15 is NOT a commonly owned firearm in the state of California. The ban has been in place for years. Those that possess AR-15s in California right now do so illegally. Therefore I don’t understand how the judge can argue that it’s in common usage in this state. 
Click to expand...
I don't know how many Californian's own do you ?

But we're not just talking about a specific weapon ( an AR15 ) ........ the bans affected many other guns right ?

"Instead, the firearms deemed ‘assault weapons’ are fairly ordinary, popular, modern rifles. "

Judge is right - firearms deemed " assault" are just regular semi-auto rifles that are popular ordinary modern rifles

Do you now understand that or ??   I'm asking - because many non-gun people don't have any idea that a .223 AR-15 is functionally the same as many .243 / .270 / 30-06 / hunting rifles - they look different and the .243 / .270 / 30-06 is much more powerful ... but functionally they're identical in that they are semi-auto and have a magazine

 
Stealthycat said:
uncommon = nuclear warheads, grenades, landmines, missiles etc - war weapons

common owned = semi-automatic rifles that have been available in the USA since they were created. Single shots are also common, pump and lever action as well as bolt actions

Remember the links I posted that showed my son's turkey hunting shotgun as illegal with some of these stupid " assault weapon" laws ?

This judge got that

I don't know how many Californian's own do you ?

But we're not just talking about a specific weapon ( an AR15 ) ........ the bans affected many other guns right ?

"Instead, the firearms deemed ‘assault weapons’ are fairly ordinary, popular, modern rifles. "

Judge is right - firearms deemed " assault" are just regular semi-auto rifles that are popular ordinary modern rifles

Do you now understand that or ??   I'm asking - because many non-gun people don't have any idea that a .223 AR-15 is functionally the same as many .243 / .270 / 30-06 / hunting rifles - they look different and the .243 / .270 / 30-06 is much more powerful ... but functionally they're identical in that they are semi-auto and have a magazine
Click to expand...
You’re both ignoring my questions and acting very patronizing (which I’ve noticed is a habit whenever these issues are discussed. I get the difference between common and uncommon weapons. I don’t get why there should be one. I also don’t get why an AR-15 is being defined as a common weapon in California when it’s currently illegal to own. 
 

 
timschochet said:
No I don’t. 
 

First off, I don’t understand why there is any difference between “commonly owned” firearms and “uncommonly owned” firearms in terms of the government’s ability to regulate them as per the Second Amendment. It’s been explained to me that this was part of the Heller decision but I still don’t see why it makes any sense. 
 

Second, even if you apply this standard, an AR-15 is NOT a commonly owned firearm in the state of California. The ban has been in place for years. Those that possess AR-15s in California right now do so illegally. Therefore I don’t understand how the judge can argue that it’s in common usage in this state. 
Click to expand...
Heller made a mess of things.  

Miller was about the National Firearms Act, which required registration and tax of certain firearms, including short-barreled shotguns and short-barreled rifles (it was not a ban).  The key thing that came out of Miller was that the Second Amendment protected ownership of guns that had a "reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."   So if they were in common usage for the purposes of maintaining a well-regulated militia, they were protected.    The government argued that sawed-off shotguns didn't fall into this category, and the SC decided not to rule either way on that issue.   

Things stayed that way until Heller in 2008.   Scalia wrote for the majority that the first half of the Second Amendment was not intended to be applied literally, and that it was just a prefatory clause--the Founding Fathers clearing their throats before getting to the point.    So despite 70 years of cases to the contrary, common usage relating to maintaining a well-regulated militia was reduced to "common usage."   Somehow they also added "home defense" as a part of the Second Amendment.  Also, under Heller, the Second Amendment now effectively reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."    Heller basically re-wrote the Constitution and then said if people want to restrict guns they should amend the Constitution.   

Since then, courts that have upheld assault weapons bans have ruled that these guns are military weapons converted to civilian use, and therefore not in common usage and not protected by the Second Amendment.    But they continue to rise in numbers and popularity, so this California judge has decided that they are now common, and therefore protected.   Under his theory, if enough people owned bazookas, they would also be protected.  Under the logic of Heller, this is probably the right decision.  But it highlights what a bad decision Heller is.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
You’re both ignoring my questions and acting very patronizing (which I’ve noticed is a habit whenever these issues are discussed. I get the difference between common and uncommon weapons. I don’t get why there should be one. I also don’t get why an AR-15 is being defined as a common weapon in California when it’s currently illegal to own. 
 
Click to expand...
You can own an AR-15 in California if it meets restrictions the state has regarding fixed stock, capacity, grip and a few other characteristics.  A quick google will show examples of AR-15's that are state compliant.  Here is one site.

As for the number of AR-15s in California (or by state), I'm unsure.  I've seen articles from 2018 suggesting there are 18 million modern sporting rifles (which includes AR-15) in the US.  Sometime earlier this year, I read where this is now in excess of 20 million.  

 
popeye said:
You can own an AR-15 in California if it meets restrictions the state has regarding fixed stock, capacity, grip and a few other characteristics.  A quick google will show examples of AR-15's that are state compliant.  Here is one site.

As for the number of AR-15s in California (or by state), I'm unsure.  I've seen articles from 2018 suggesting there are 18 million modern sporting rifles (which includes AR-15) in the US.  Sometime earlier this year, I read where this is now in excess of 20 million.  
Click to expand...
For the purposes of this judge's decision, I don't think it matters how many are in California.  He's saying the California law is unconstitutional, so the fact that California has fewer relative to other states just proves his point that the people of California's rights are being infringed as to their ability to own a gun in common usage in other states.  

With the current makeup of the SC, this will be the death knell of all state assault weapons bans.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
You’re both ignoring my questions and acting very patronizing (which I’ve noticed is a habit whenever these issues are discussed. I get the difference between common and uncommon weapons. I don’t get why there should be one. I also don’t get why an AR-15 is being defined as a common weapon in California when it’s currently illegal to own. 
 
Click to expand...
because an AR-15 is a specific model of a gun that's common - semi-automatic hunting rifles

there is literally no functional difference

so the judge understood that - the "banning" wasn't reasonable and he explain why

I'm sorry, some people really have no idea the functionality of guns, what AR15's are and what they are not. i don't know where you fall in all that so I was asking

 
-fish- said:
Under his theory, if enough people owned bazookas, they would also be protected.  Under the logic of Heller, this is probably the right decision.  But it highlights what a bad decision Heller is.  
Click to expand...
Exactly my point about being logically correct, but makes little rational sense.

 
kodycutter said:
suspects arrested in road rage killing of a 6 yr old

Not a mass shooting, but for anyone who followed this awful story, alleged shooter and driver arrested.
Click to expand...
one of those awful "assault" weapons used ?

or just one of the guns used in 98% of all murders where guns are used ?

see - Democrats can't use the above to further their agenda, so they're silent

had that shooting been with an AR15, it would be national news and the calls to ban certain rifles would be rampant

 
What an awful story with a tragic and unnecessary outcome. Spur of the moment anger combined with convenient access to a weapon and one life is lost and two others changed forever for the worst. Terrible

 
Joe Schmo said:
What an awful story with a tragic and unnecessary outcome. Spur of the moment anger combined with convenient access to a weapon and one life is lost and two others changed forever for the worst. Terrible
Click to expand...
https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/four-killed-by-car-were-victims-anti-islamic-hate-crime-canada-police-2021-06-07/

another awful story with a tragic and unnecessary outcome - anger and hate combined with convenient access to a weapon

terrible

see, its not the weapon used, its the people making the decisions to be evil 

 
Baseball bat 

Rat poison 

Water 

Pillow 

Hands 

Feet 

Car 

Butter knife 

Gun 

Multi purpose items designed with killing as a main function

 
There were 14,400 gun-related homicides in 2019.

Killings involving a gun accounted for nearly three quarters of all homicides in the US in that year.
Click to expand...
darn facts

Man, with so many butter knives laying around I can't believe that people keep using guns to kill other people.  

 
-fish- said:
darn facts

Man, with so many butter knives laying around I can't believe that people keep using guns to kill other people.  
Click to expand...
there are a lot of facts there

they want to break out "assault" weapons but they never discuss how rare people use rifles in murders

why ?

The United States is sovereign, and apples to apples comparisons do not worth the fundamental Rights our Constitution grants. Comparisons fail horrible because of that

 
Stealthycat said:
you didn't list that as one of the things guns are used for

it might be the very most important of all - it is the main reason the founding fathers made Rights to own guns the 2nd Amendment IMO
Click to expand...
You said, "some people really have no idea the functionality of guns, what AR15's are and what they are not."  Their function is to kill things (or explode them if shooting skeet, or puncture holes in paper, etc. for sport).

Firearms can be used for many things, doorstops, crutches, art, but that is not their basic function.  Their basic function is to kill.  Killing for sport, killing for criminal activity, killing for protection.  They are design for killing (mostly).

It's time to move on from the late 18th century and notions of needing a firearm for personal protection.  Just like you probably don't think that you need anti-personnel mines in your front yard for property protection.

 
Stealthycat said:
The United States is sovereign, and apples to apples comparisons do not worth the fundamental Rights our Constitution grants. Comparisons fail horrible because of that
Click to expand...
So we shouldn't compare ourselves to other western, industrialized, democratic nations because "the United States is sovereign"?

How's that sand taste?

 
The Z Machine said:
So we shouldn't compare ourselves to other western, industrialized, democratic nations because "the United States is sovereign"?

How's that sand taste?
Click to expand...
What's being sovereign have to do with the fact that 73% of homicides in the US are gun related?   I guess I should have used an American link.   Why aren't there more butter knife murders?  Why is it always guns?  Darn murderers trying to give guns a bad reputation.   

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Z Machine said:
You said, "some people really have no idea the functionality of guns, what AR15's are and what they are not."  Their function is to kill things (or explode them if shooting skeet, or puncture holes in paper, etc. for sport).

Firearms can be used for many things, doorstops, crutches, art, but that is not their basic function.  Their basic function is to kill.  Killing for sport, killing for criminal activity, killing for protection.  They are design for killing (mostly).

It's time to move on from the late 18th century and notions of needing a firearm for personal protection.  Just like you probably don't think that you need anti-personnel mines in your front yard for property protection.
Click to expand...
some people have no idea on functionality of guns - they see fully auto guns and believe they are all over the place because of what they saw on tv

they think an AR15 is a military weapon because CNN tells them so

they think "assault" weapon bans only affect criminals

so many misconceptions ...... people who know little about guns but have such strong opinions - funny thing isn't it ?

some guns are designed really for sporting purposes, target shooting and others are really designed only for self defense - I have a double barrel derringer ... lower barrel is a 45 Colt / .410 and upper barrel is a 45/70 Govt. I'd use it only as a last defense .... its really not designed for anything except survival situations or if something is on top of you trying to kill you. 

guns are a tool - any tool can be misused 

you can "move on" if you'd like, you have the freedom to choose to do that. I have a Constitutional Right on guns and I also have a right to defend myself and my property. 

truth is, you WANT people using guns to protect you, me? I'll do it myself

maybe we need a registry .... anti-gun people can sign up and police will know ahead of time which houses don't approve of guns and when they are alerted to 911 calls and people in need they can go to the houses and people who want guns for protection and those who don't can figure it out on their own?  would that work for you ? 

 
The Z Machine said:
So we shouldn't compare ourselves to other western, industrialized, democratic nations because "the United States is sovereign"?

How's that sand taste?
Click to expand...
we are not a Democracy #1 and #2 because of the freedoms we have no, apples to apples comparisons on many things simply won't work

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Operation Fast & Furious Scandal: Obama Administration's ATF Sent Guns To Drug Cartels (5/27/22 20:22 PST)
Replies
7
Views
531
Max Power
Max Power
GordonGekko
How NYC Bodega Clerk Jose Alba's "Self Defense" Became Political Persecution ( 7/10/22 2:12 PST)
2
Replies
97
Views
2K
parasaurolophus
parasaurolophus
GordonGekko
New York Enacts Ridiculous New Gun Laws: "I’m A NYC Liberal, And I Want A Gun" (7/3/22 20:29 PST)
Replies
28
Views
783
FairWarning
FairWarning

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Top