General Mass Shooting Thread (originally Las Vegas Strip)

[PleaseBlitz]

5 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

Except the experts can't claim that:

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/

 

And she can make a point without partisan shilling (it's not the first time she slams a political party when the discussio is going on without any real partisan slant).

 

That discusses a ban that was in effect from 1994 to 2004.  Kind of a lot has changed since then.

 

[LadySkinsFan]

Okay, now you are veering toward the absurd, KH.

[PleaseBlitz]

2 minutes ago, Kosher Ham said:

 

I realize that. So what is the point of having a dresser ? Shouldn't a closet get the job done ? 

 

 

I think you've lost your train of thought.

[Chew]

It feels weird arguing with liberals, as I'm one myself.  I'd probably agree with you guys straight down the ballot on every single political issue......except for guns.  Blame my time in the military I guess, but I enjoy shooting rifles for fun.  And from some of the responses to me in here, I can see why it's so easy for the NRA to get their members all fired up.  Being talked at as if my opinion is somehow wrong, and being attacked personally (although indirectly).  "You people are twisted" I believe the comment was of a person that quoted me, after he went on about how I was wrong. Hey man, if that's how you feel, go for it.  Doesn't bother me one bit.  I only bring it up because, for the low IQ, easily triggered, hardcore nuts who love god, family, and guns, the anti-gun crowd continues to give the NRA bulletin board material for their loyal subjects.  

 

The NRA and pro-gun lobbyists are winning the war on assault rifles.  Currently, there is very little restriction.  Private citizens can own unlimited assault rifles, unlimited ammo, and high capacity magazines.  And since they're getting everything they want, why would the pro-gun crowd and the NRA have any reason to compromise with left at all?  If the anti-gun folks want to see change, wouldn't it make sense to at least approach the conversation with some sort of compromise?  I don't understand how that doesn't make sense.   

 I am a reasonable and open-minded gun owner.  But the NRA and most people who own dozens of guns are not.  As the laws are now, there is zero motivation for them to be reasonable or open-minded to yours demands at all.  So offer some sort of compromise that at least puts pressure on the NRA to come to the table.  

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

This is a good debate. 59 guns same as owning a dresser. No poking holes in the infringing rights argument because that's partisan talk even though the issue is entirely partisan and one side's "beliefs" and policies are crafted by its lobbyist who are quite obviously full of ****. Neither side wants to compromise and both are equally extreme even though they aren't.

[MartinC]

25 minutes ago, twa said:

 

In general because they control the populace more, would need specific countries for detail.

 

 

Bull****.

 

Lets take say the UK, Australia, South Africa and Germany. I’ve lived in all those nations for at least some time (at least 6 months). And I’ve lived in the US for almost 2 years now.

 

How do you contend that these Countries control their populace more than the US (gun control apart - since that’s kind of the point)?

 

Each of these Countries has a free press so let’s just throw that argument away. (I’m stretching a point a bit here with South Africa).

[Popeman38]

2 minutes ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said:

This is a good debate. 59 guns same as owning a dresser. No poking holes in the infringing rights argument because that's partisan talk even though the issue is entirely partisan and one side's "beliefs" and policies are crafted by its lobbyist who are quite obviously full of ****. Neither side wants to compromise and both are equally extreme even though they aren't.

If that's all you take from the last 5 or so pages, then yeah, the country is ****ed.

[PleaseBlitz]

6 minutes ago, youngchew said:

 

The NRA and pro-gun lobbyists are winning the war on assault rifles.  Currently, there is very little restriction.  Private citizens can own unlimited assault rifles, unlimited ammo, and high capacity magazines.  And since they're getting everything they want, why would the pro-gun crowd and the NRA have any reason to compromise with left at all?  If the anti-gun folks want to see change, wouldn't it make sense to at least approach the conversation with some sort of compromise?  I don't understand how that doesn't make sense.   
 

 

So, the two bolded sections are why it doesn't make sense.  The NRA/pro-gun crowd have absolutely no reason to compromise.  That being the case, the gun control movement should push for what they actually want, since no compromise is possible.  

[Popeman38]

9 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

That discusses a ban that was in effect from 1994 to 2004.  Kind of a lot has changed since then.

 

<pic removed>

And? That chart doesn't prove the AWB kept the shootings down anymore than it proves quidditch is a real sport.

[AsburySkinsFan]

1 hour ago, Popeman38 said:

Define assault rifle, please.

Stop it

[Dan T.]

24 minutes ago, Kosher Ham said:

 

Sorry you feel that way. My point should be clear though. 

Medicate. No dickish intent. 

I try my best to put myself in situations where I do not have to typically repeat myself. 

 

Medicated folks or unstable folks ( which was part of that post)...always say the same thing, over and over, as if you didn't understand the first go around. 

That is a grown woman. She can defend her words. Are you thinking she needs protection from you or @TryTheBeal! ? 

Not to mention, I put my captain cape away in the college years.  

 

 

I'll talk to you like the kindergartner you're acting like.  "Use your words Kosher Ham." Because your "point" wasn't clear from the picture you posted. Maybe it was clear in your juvenile mind, but it was not to all the adults.  

 

But then again, even when you explain your idiotic post, it still doesn't make a whole lot of sense. 

[PleaseBlitz]

4 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

And? That chart doesn't prove the AWB kept the shootings down anymore than it proves quidditch is a real sport.

 

If your standard is that reasonable restrictions must be absolutely proven to have been totally effective in preventing shootings, then your standard is too high, given the interest on the other side is "I need an assault rifle because I think they are fun."

 

Anyways, the overarching point is that the thing you cited to is grossly outdated and irrelevant AND doesn't argue for one side or the other.  So, basically, it is entirely pointless. 

Edited October 3, 2017 by PleaseBlitz

[Popeman38]

Just now, AsburySkinsFan said:

Stop it

No. The AWB of 1994 couldn't do it, because it exempted like 91 rifles that would have otherwise met the definition to be banned. Its unpossible to define because the rifles are built on the same platform.  You can buy a polished walnut .308 and mod it into an "assault rifle" for a few hundred bucks, by only changing the window dressing.

2 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

If your standard is that reasonable restrictions must be absolutely proven to have been totally effective in preventing shootings, then your standard is too high, given the interest on the other side is "I need an assault rifle because I think they are fun."

My standard is pretty low.  I offered my common sense controls earlier.  But define assault weapon.  What it really means is "scary/military in appearance." 

[PleaseBlitz]

1 minute ago, Popeman38 said:

 

My standard is pretty low.  I offered my common sense controls earlier.  But define assault weapon.  What it really means is "scary/military in appearance." 

 

I understand that this is a major NRA talking point, but from a legal standpoint, you can define literally anything you want, however you want.  This argument is entirely without merit.  

[Llevron]

9 minutes ago, youngchew said:

  Being talked at as if my opinion is somehow wrong, and being attacked personally (although indirectly).  "You people are twisted" I believe the comment was of a person that quoted me, after he went on about how I was wrong. Hey man, if that's how you feel, go for it.  Doesn't bother me one bit.  

 

I already apologized-kinda for that. You gotta get past it if it doesn't bother you one bit. Wasn't my intent to attack you personally (which would be a poor attempt lets be honest) but to attack the mindset of "I want this so I will refuse any attempt to change no matter how much better it would be for others". I think that mindset is twisted. But thats my opinion, obviously. 

 

Again, I dont mean to call you twisted. I mean the mindset. And even that is kind of rude but I dont begrudge you personally so please try not to take it that way. I understand, however, if you do. 

 

9 minutes ago, youngchew said:

The NRA and pro-gun lobbyists are winning the war on assault rifles.  Currently, there is very little restriction.  Private citizens can own unlimited assault rifles, unlimited ammo, and high capacity magazines.  And since they're getting everything they want, why would the pro-gun crowd and the NRA have any reason to compromise with left at all?  If the anti-gun folks want to see change, wouldn't it make sense to at least approach the conversation with some sort of compromise?  I don't understand how that doesn't make sense.   

 

Same way saying the GOP is winning politically so why would they have to compromise anything? Cause its the right thing to do. Not compromising and thus getting people killed with your product is the wrong thing to do. Its not hard. 

 

9 minutes ago, youngchew said:

 I am a reasonable and open-minded gun owner.  But the NRA and most people who own dozens of guns are not.  As the laws are now, there is zero motivation for them to be reasonable or open-minded to yours demands at all.  So offer some sort of compromise that at least puts pressure on the NRA to come to the table.  

 

You are reasonable. Thats not hard to see after reading your posts. The pressure needs to come from the law, not compromise. The compromise is you get to keep doing business and making more money than you can count but you cant do it this way. We dont need to compromise we need to litigate 

9 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

And? That chart doesn't prove the AWB kept the shootings down anymore than it proves quidditch is a real sport.

 

I think it helps. There is at least a trend worth debating is there not? 

[Kosher Ham]

13 minutes ago, MartinC said:

 

We are already here ...

 

Why, if it was so great over there without guns ? 

Spoke with a buddy last night that talked about all of the assaults, robberies, stabbings, and rapes in GB. 

He was happy to be here and felt so much safer. 

Heck he is from London proper, not  even Greater London, the centre ...should be the safest place in the country.

 

12 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

Okay, now you are veering toward the absurd, KH.

 

Perhaps, but the same can be said about the folks that want an all out firearms ban. 

Do you need a coffee table ? 

You are intelligent enough to know what I mean, don't play coy like Dan T. 

 

1 minute ago, Dan T. said:

 

I'll talk to you like the kindergartner you're acting like.  "Use your words Kosher Ham." Because your "point" wasn't clear from the picture you posted. Maybe it was clear in your juvenile mind, but it was not to all the adults.  

 

But then again, even when you explain your idiotic post, it still doesn't make a whole lot of sense. 

 

So you disagree, or you want to play games ?  

So my juvenile mind is willing to listen and compromise, but that is not good enough ? 

I only ask because juveniles tend to ask a lot of questions. 

[Popeman38]

1 minute ago, PleaseBlitz said:

I understand that this is a major NRA talking point, but from a legal standpoint, you can define literally anything you want, however you want.  This argument is entirely without merit.  

You can if the people in charge know enough. Unfortunately we are governed by people who don't. Therefore we get a ban that exempted half of what would be considered an assault weapon. I'm not saying it is impossible, just that with this group of Congresscritters HIGHLY unlikely, bordering on impossible.

[Mooka]

1 minute ago, youngchew said:

Being talked at as if my opinion is somehow wrong, and being attacked personally (although indirectly). 

 

Your opinion is based on what the Supreme Court rules.

 

So as of 2008 and 2010 or whatever ever case in the last few decades your opinion is currently the law of the land. 

 

What I question, is if the courts were to rule differently, would your opinion then change? 

 

 

Where is the compromise in this statement: "But I'll never hand mine over.  EVER."

 

?

Kind of similar to abortion, no official would ever change some people's minds. 

 

[Kosher Ham]

Oh my, he might simply be dense. I apologize sir.

Edited October 3, 2017 by Kosher Ham

[PleaseBlitz]

4 minutes ago, Kosher Ham said:

 

Do you need a coffee table ? 

You are intelligent enough to know what I mean, don't play coy like Dan T. 

 

 

Is a coffee table capable of killing 59 people and injuring over 500 in a short period of time because one asshole wanted to?  No?  Then we're done with this line of false equivalency. 

 

 

3 minutes ago, Popeman38 said:

You can if the people in charge know enough. Unfortunately we are governed by people who don't. Therefore we get a ban that exempted half of what would be considered an assault weapon. I'm not saying it is impossible, just that with this group of Congresscritters HIGHLY unlikely, bordering on impossible.

 

Thank you.  

Edited October 3, 2017 by PleaseBlitz

[redskinss]

2 hours ago, Popeman38 said:

A semi-automatic rifle simply means 1 trigger squeeze, one round fired. So very useful in hunting.  If you don't drop the animal on the first shot, it is very useful to be able to squeeze off a 2nd round quickly without having to reload.

 

 

This is not entirely accurate. 

A semi automatic weapon is one that also reloads the weapon for immediate refire. 

Which means shots as fast as you can pull the trigger and some people can pull the trigger pretty fast. 

Reloading a weapon and re****ing it are two very different things. 

 

OK re-roostering it. 

Maybe that one will get past the filters. 

Edited October 3, 2017 by redskinss

[Chew]

1 minute ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

So, the two bolded sections are why it doesn't make sense.  The NRA/pro-gun crowd have absolutely no reason to compromise.  That being the case, the gun control movement should push for what they actually want, since no compromise is possible.  

 

Several folks that are anti-gun said they would not be willing to compromise at all on assault rifles.  If that's the case, why even bother speaking on it?  Because nothing will change with that mentality.  Both sides are stubborn and dug in, but it's the left/anti-gun that wants change.  It's the left that is currently losing. So the burden is on the left to at least start tossing some possible ideas of compromise out there.  The NRA doesn't need anything from the left on the AR issue, they're getting just about everything they want: very little restriction on assault rifles. 

 

Is what I'm saying not making sense?  I'm genuinely asking, not being snarky LOL.  I'm honestly trying to understand why anti-AR folks would ever expect anything to change.  At least throw a tickler offer out there to get a sense of whether or not the NRA would even come to the table.  If they did that, the media would put a ton of pressure on the NRA and pro-gun politicians to at least hear you out and respond.  That's how you could at least get some sort of dialogue going.  

[MartinC]

6 minutes ago, Kosher Ham said:

 

Why, if it was so great over there without guns ? 

 

Because gun culture and legislation is just one factor in my decision on where I believe the best life and opportunity for my family lies. I choose the US because on balance I think this is a great country. It has so much going for it. But on some things - gun control and healthcare spring to mind - it’s blindingly tone deaf.

[Dan T.]

Not being coy, Kosher Ham.  I honestly have no ****ing idea what you're talking about.  So I'll post this:

 

 

 

[Kosher Ham]

Just now, PleaseBlitz said:

 

Is a coffee table capable of killing 59 people and injuring over 500 in a short period of time because one asshole wanted to?  No?  Then we're done with this line of false equivalency.  

 

Wouldn't it depend on how you used the coffee table ?  Yes. 

 

I am as upset about this tragedy as any of you. 

Pisses me off. 

 

But blinders will not be put up on this one, and I will not sit back and let you and others try to put me in a corner because I simply disagree. 

Especially when I mostly agree with everyone here. 

2 minutes ago, Dan T. said:

Not being coy, Kosher Ham.  I honestly have no ****ing idea what you're talking about.  So I'll post this:

 

You have an inkling. You probably do know...but hmm, maybe not, or won't admit it. 

That is funny though. Thanks.