General Mass Shooting Thread (originally Las Vegas Strip)

[Popeman38]

3 minutes ago, Llevron said:

They are literally the same gun then? So why do folks go to the AR for the murder sprees? Asking in earnest cause clearly you know more than me on this one. 

I am not a psychologist, so I couldn't begin to tell you.

 

I am here as a staunch defender of the 2nd amendment who owns exactly zero firearms. I have also supported common sense gun control:

 

- No bump stocks

- Limit magazines to 5 rounds

- 7 day waiting period

- Close the gun show loophole - universal background checks (govt must make them easy so private sellers can use them)

- Mandated gun safety classes before first purchase

- Storage requirements (touchy)

 

One thing that needs to change is the attitude of the "gun control crowd" in politics (not here, the actual lawmakers).  Too many are in the DC/Chicago/NY mindset that we start by banning everything and making it so difficult to own legally that the vast majority just give up.  Look in this thread. There are those who think rifles should be outlawed. Handguns kill WAY more people every year than rifles. They just aren't all in one event. In Chicago on 9/15, 9/16, & 9/17 there were 11 deaths by handgun (I use Chicago because the numbers are the easiest to find). On average, there are 32 homicides per day in America by gun (vast majority by handgun).

 

The mindset of the NRA and gun owners need to change as well.  Not every proposed change should be met with apocalyptic responses about banning all guns. Universal background checks and waiting periods are not antithetical to gun rights. Neither is magazine capacity (sorry youngchew).

 

[MartinC]

11 minutes ago, twa said:

 

I doubt it, though it would probably change his weapon of choice.

Guns are far from the most lethal options.

 

I do agree bans reduce the use of things in general though,...but general is not really the problem in such cases.

 

So why are there so many mass killings in the US compared to other wealthy advanced democracies? Heck even compared to pretty much anywhere. 

 

It it seems that in other countries with much lower public ownership of guns ‘crazies’ are not switching to use of semtex or chemical weapons to carry out mass murder.

[Chew]

3 minutes ago, Llevron said:

 

That's probably the most naive thing I have ever read in the tailgate. You actually think the NRA wants anything other than to make money?

 

And they want to compromise? They literally were against a law put I'm place to limit the same of guns to crazy people. How was that not a compromise? 

 

You people are twisted 

 

Can only speak for myself as far as being willing to compromise.    I said in a post earlier this morning that "unlike most gun enthusiasts, I would be willing to compromise."   I am well aware that most gun owners are stubborn.

 

I am on several gun forums, and most of the active folks are NRA members.  I was simply making the point that coming to the table with no compromise options at all won't help the situation.  The NRA spams the kind of quotes from Hilary and responses in threads like this where anti-gun folks say "there is no compromise."  Sure, I am aware and acknowledge that the NRA is fueled by dollars.  You're not opening my eyes to anything.  My point is that they use the left's "there is no compromise, no ARs, period" comments as propaganda and feed it to their members to reinforce the agendas.

 

As far as the "you people are twisted" comment as if you know me, I'll just give that a "LOL."  

 

 

[Popeman38]

17 minutes ago, codeorama said:

I'm a gun owner and I am all for the right to own guns. However, I'm anti NRA and have no problem with very strict background checks and assault rifle bans.

Define assault rifle, please.

[Going Commando]

1 minute ago, Popeman38 said:

- No bump stocks

- Limit magazines to 5 rounds

- 7 day waiting period

- Close the gun show loophole - universal background checks (govt must make them easy so private sellers can use them)

- Mandated gun safety classes before first purchase

- Storage requirements (touchy)

 

I support every single one of those reforms.  If we could get them, that would make things tremendously better.  The pro-gun control crowd would get behind these 100%.  How can we get this done?  The GoP is simply not going to deal on any of this and we are powerless to enact any of these changes while they control any part of the federal government.

[Llevron]

2 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

I am not a psychologist, so I couldn't begin to tell you.

 

I am here as a staunch defender of the 2nd amendment who owns exactly zero firearms. I have also supported common sense gun control:

 

- No bump stocks

- Limit magazines to 5 rounds

- 7 day waiting period

- Close the gun show loophole - universal background checks (govt must make them easy so private sellers can use them)

- Mandated gun safety classes before first purchase

- Storage requirements 

 

 

First of all I'm totally surprised we don't have all of the protections you listed already! Kind of shocking. 

 

But I guess what I'm asking about why they use the AR is if it's more easily modified or something like that. I feel there has to be some kind of difference otherwise why use that so exclusively (also have no knowledge of how often these things happen with that gun in particular)

 

I need to do some resurch but I appreciate you talking back knowing I don't know wtf I'm talking about lol

[Popeman38]

13 minutes ago, Llevron said:

That's probably the most naive thing I have ever read in the tailgate. You actually think the NRA wants anything other than to make money?

 

And they want to compromise? They literally were against a law put I'm place to limit the same of guns to crazy people. How was that not a compromise? 

 

You people are twisted 

Just to play devil's advocate:

That's probably the most naive thing I have ever read in the tailgate. You actually think the gun control crowd wants anything other than to take your guns?

 

And they want to compromise?  They literally were against a law put in place to limit the scope of government involvement in every gun purchase. How was that not a compromise? 

 

You people are twisted 

[codeorama]

1 minute ago, Popeman38 said:

Define assault rifle, please.

 

That's part of the problem, IMO, AR15, AK, etc... they are not hunting rifles.  I grew up hunting. Never been hunting with anyone that used those guns. 

Ultimately, as part of the process, there needs to be a clear definition not necessarily of "Assault Rifle" but in terms of which guns are made for hunting and which are military use.  Is there a clear answer? no, not at this time, but something needs to happen. This is getting old.  

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

3 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

One thing that needs to change is the attitude of the "gun control crowd" in politics (not here, the actual lawmakers).  Too many are in the DC/Chicago/NY mindset that we start by banning everything and making it so difficult to own legally that the vast majority just give up.

This isn't my impression at all. Which political figures are advocating to ban everything? How many legislative proposals?

[bearrock]

3 minutes ago, youngchew said:

 

Can only speak for myself as far as being willing to compromise.   

 

 

So where is your middle ground?  What gun restrictions are you willing to compromise on and accept?

 

 

[Going Commando]

Just now, Llevron said:

But I guess what I'm asking about why they use the AR is if it's more easily modified or something like that. I feel there has to be some kind of difference otherwise why use that so exclusively (also have no knowledge of how often these things happen with that gun in particular)

 

 

This Rolling Stone article came out after the Orlando Night Club shooting breaking down why the AR platform is so popular and has been used in most of these shootings: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-ar15-gun-used-in-orlando-20160613

 

Long story short, they're ubiquitous, are comfortable and easy to shoot, and they can have massive magazine capacities.

[Chew]

21 minutes ago, MartinC said:

 

Sometimes in life there is no middle ground. This is one of those times.

 

Agree to disagree.  We can shake hands and walk away.  But once again, the only point I'm trying to make is that "no compromise" won't help anything.  Not that the NRA is trying to compromise, either.  But with neither side trying, nothing is going to change.  As it stands now, the gun crowd is getting everything they want.  Unlimited ARs, unlimited ammo, high capacity magazines.  They don't need to compromise because they're already "winning" the situation.  It's up to the anti-gun folks to offer some decent compromises to at least put pressure on the NRA to think about it

 

I personally would be willing to compromise on quite a bit.  If you wanted to limit the amount of ARs to just 1 or 2?  I would be okay with that.  If you wanted to flat out ban high capacity magazines, I would also honestly have no issue with that.  If you wanted a much longer and more detailed process for buying a gun, I am totally on board with that.

 

I am offering multiple solutions in which I would be willing to compromise, and you come back to me with "there is no middle ground."  That's fine.  That's how you feel, that's how you feel.  But nothing will ever change.

 

I am not your typical gun enthusiast.  I'm black, I'm a Bernie-loving liberal, and I WOULD be willing to compromise A TON on the gun ownership laws if it were up to me.  But it's not.  And the "no compromise" response from the anti-gun crowd will get you nowhere with flyover America gun country.   

Edited October 3, 2017 by Chew

[Llevron]

1 minute ago, Popeman38 said:

Just to play devil's advocate:

That's probably the most naive thing I have ever read in the tailgate. You actually think the gun control crowd wants anything other than to take your guns?

 

And they want to compromise?  They literally were against a law put in place to limit the scope of government involvement in every gun purchase. How was that not a compromise? 

 

You people are twisted 

 

Yea thats really easy to do but now back it up. Why does the gun control crowd want to take your guns? For ****s and gigs? I can tell you why the NRA makes up bull****. Their last 8 years of profits tells you alot.

 

How is limiting government involvement a compromise? 

 

Wanting to stop mass murders is twisted now? 

[codeorama]

1 minute ago, Llevron said:

 

Yea thats really easy to do but now back it up. Why does the gun control crowd want to take your guns? For ****s and gigs? I can tell you why the NRA makes up bull****. Their last 8 years of profits tells you alot.

 

How is limiting government involvement a compromise? 

 

Wanting to stop mass murders is twisted now? 

 

This is true. My best friend is a conservative and anti liberal, he bought more guns during the last 8 years because he was literally convinced his guns were going to be taken away.  

[Chew]

6 minutes ago, bearrock said:

So where is your middle ground?  What gun restrictions are you willing to compromise on and accept?

 

 

 

See my latest response to MartinC.

 

Tell me if you think I'm being unreasonable or not in my suggestions.

[MartinC]

1 minute ago, youngchew said:

 

 am not your typical gun enthusiast.  I'm black, I'm a Bernie-loving liberal, and I WOULD be willing to compromise A TON on the gun ownership laws if it were up to me.  But it's not.  And the "no compromise" response from the anti-gun crowd will get you nowhere with flyover America gun country.   

 

Look I’ve already said in this thread that there has to be nuance in the legal response. That will involve looking at things like bump stocks, magazine capacity, rate of fire, speed of reloading etc etc.

 

Now I will be surprised if anything happens. NRA is too powerful, GOP is too screwed up, President is a gibbering moron. But if it does your take that ‘I have my AR-15 and I’m never giving it up’ is not subject to compromise. 

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

How's this for a compromise? Take away everyone's guns with the exception of George Soros and his fighting force of globalist Sharia Muslim refugees.

[Popeman38]

Just now, Llevron said:

Yea thats really easy to do but now back it up. Why does the gun control crowd want to take your guns? For ****s and gigs? I can tell you why the NRA makes up bull****. Their last 8 years of profits tells you alot.

 

How is limiting government involvement a compromise? 

 

Wanting to stop mass murders is twisted now? 

Nothing. It's propaganda, pure and simple. 

 

Look in this thread. An "assault weapons ban" (i.e. owning one becomes a crime and you have to forfeit) is proposed without being able to define an assault weapon. When Pelosi and Schumer get up and talk about assault weapon bans, the NRA has proof that the Dems want to take away your guns. The ads write themselves. 

[MartinC]

2 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

How's this for a compromise? Take away everyone's guns with the exception of George Soros and his fighting force of globalist Sharia Muslim refugees.

 

That would actually be a HUGE improvement. We have the worlds biggest military and a para military police force to protect us from them. 

[Llevron]

6 minutes ago, codeorama said:

 

This is true. My best friend is a conservative and anti liberal, he bought more guns during the last 8 years because he was literally convinced his guns were going to be taken away.  

 

And who said they where going to take his guns?? 

 

The NRA? The same people who sold them so him? You dont say! 

[MartinC]

Just now, Popeman38 said:

Nothing. It's propaganda, pure and simple. 

 

Look in this thread. An "assault weapons ban" (i.e. owning one becomes a crime and you have to forfeit) is proposed without being able to define an assault weapon. When Pelosi and Schumer get up and talk about assault weapon bans, the NRA has proof that the Dems want to take away your guns. The ads write themselves. 

 

You’ve already given us a good starting point for where to start defining what needs to be banned. Stick it on some t-shirts and let’s get started.

[Popeman38]

1 minute ago, Llevron said:

 

And who said they where going to take his guns?? 

 

The NRA? The same people who sold them so him? You dont say! 

If you ban assault weapons, you make owning one a crime. Owners have to choose between forfeiting them or being a criminal gun owner.

[Llevron]

Just now, Popeman38 said:

Nothing. It's propaganda, pure and simple. 

 

Look in this thread. An "assault weapons ban" (i.e. owning one becomes a crime and you have to forfeit) is proposed without being able to define an assault weapon. When Pelosi and Schumer get up and talk about assault weapon bans, the NRA has proof that the Dems want to take away your guns. The ads write themselves. 

 

They will do that regardless of what they say and who says it because propaganda works on the mentality inept. It doesnt matter who the bad guy is as long as they want to steal your guns. Look at who "Thanked" you for the post. The same guy saying that the NRA wants to compromise. They cant see it. 

[bearrock]

4 minutes ago, youngchew said:

 

See my latest response to MartinC.

 

Tell me if you think I'm being unreasonable or not in my suggestions.

 

I think those are good restrictions to consider and debate.  I personally would like to see a shift to smart guns locked to biometrics and better track of ammo purchases.  But, the discussion should be what is needed to prevent these mass killings in the future and whether the country is willing/able to do those things.

 

The way we are going, individual right to bear arms will become abortion for the left.  Getting 5 justices who will interpret the 2nd amendment to say no individual right will become the left's Holy Grail.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

2 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

Nothing. It's propaganda, pure and simple. 

 

Look in this thread. An "assault weapons ban" (i.e. owning one becomes a crime and you have to forfeit) is proposed without being able to define an assault weapon. When Pelosi and Schumer get up and talk about assault weapon bans, the NRA has proof that the Dems want to take away your guns. The ads write themselves. 

So earlier when you said that the gun control crowd has to change their attitude because they want to ban everything, do they really or is that just an NRA fabrication?