(no message)
And what's worse is that because the shooter was black his story will be gone in a heartbeat.
Link: https://www.mediaite.com/news/authorities-confirm-name-of-tulsa-gunman-investigation-for-bomb-threat-at-his-house/
(no message)
all those who wield guns for murder.
Fortunately in America we can help prevent mass shoutings and Gun violence by regulating guns, but unfortunately we can’t stop in advance those who would commit these atrocities by minority report detection.
Your unreasonable stance on gun measures is exactly that, unreasonable.
So yeah, I blame the individuals who kill our friends and neighbors but I blame people like you the most.
post of mine where I’m against reasonable gun measures. Look real hard because you won’t find any. Your post shows what a doofus you are.
And your post shows, you are willfully obtuse.
checks if needed and assault weapon’s whatever law is fine with me. Don’t own one and don’t want one. Good luck with the big gun crowd on that one. Blaming me more than a killer is really sad.
The stupidity that it’s the mentally unstable who are most at fault is the lie the GOP, their supporters have infused into the National daily language.
It’s the guns!
(no message)
(no message)
Nor would all the other would-be psychos out there.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
I’m willing to discuss some changes, but you are not. Both sides need to give up something, but you expect it all to come from the Right (as always).
or discussed changes for a nation here. You do post baloney rules that are befitting you and your comrades posts.
From C19 to gun regulations you avoid truths, spurn facts from experts and repeat nonsense slogans from media clowns such as Carlson, Hannity and Rogan.
Are you willing to start enforcing the border?
Unless the answer is yes, you. prove my point. You are such a dull knife.
(no message)
(no message)
You know, that makes all kinds of sense.
(no message)
weapons to hurt someone...of this I have no doubt....BUT...not everyone is like you, as we've unfortunately seen, and they have access to the same weapons and ammunition that our military is trained to use in combat, thereby enabling those "Psychos" to wreak horrific terror in schools, supermarkets, nightclubs and concert venues.
So long as you focus on folks like you, and ignore the threat from those who aren't like you, these tragedies will continue...frankly, it's up to all the responsible gun owners to see the whole picture and support needed changes to our current situation....now...no more excuses.
And I'm not ignoring anything from my perspective, if I am I apologize. I want to solve this problem as much as you do.
IMO, the PEW Research data provides the best summary of measures and their acceptance by the American public...the easiest ones for inclusion in bi-partisan legislation should be the following..(let's understand that there are always a few fine points to each, but they shouldn't stop all action on them)...
>Increased minimum age for gun purchases (e.g. 18 --> 21, or higher)
>Longer waiting times for all transactions to allow for checks to be made
>Robust databases for registration and checks on qualification in every transaction
>"Red Flag" processes and procedures that act quickly...involving police, school counselors and mental health professionals...could be treated in a "HIPPA" manner so as to not stigmatize people unnecessarily, but for certain, when trained persons become aware of questionable behavior, their needs to be a 'Flag" raised so that no transaction occurs before further review removes the flag.
>Extremely rigid "concealed carry" requirements...the vast majority of gun owners have no experience/training in how to handle a public "active shooter" event...approved CC owners need to be essentially "Pros" in the security arena.
While these measures are essential, they will not keep Psychos with no history of mental illness or questionable behavior from being able to purchase guns, so the best we can do is take the most efficient killing weapons (e.g. "Assault Rifles") away from them, and that means no sales for new ones and buy backs for those already in circulation. This is a sacrifice for responsible gun owners, but hopefully, they realize that they can still go hunting, target shooting and defending their homes with other very effective firearms...a small price to pay for helping to reduce, if not eliminate the horror and terror of mass shootings.
btw, I could build a case for making this country even safer by eliminating all guns in civilian hands, but "Prudential Judgement" says choose dramatic improvement over idealized perfection...and stay there.
Link: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/23141651/gun-control-american-approval-polling
(no message)
currently, so let's leave all the killing to our military personnel who are well trained in that role. One could make the argument that NO guns should be allowed in civilian hands, since...
>More deaths occur with guns in homes...well over 1K/yr to children who get hold of unsecured guns...than from thwarted home invasions (~100/yr)
>Over 1.8M guns were stolen from individuals (2012 - 2017) and they went straight into "bad guys" hands...with no 'sales tax' at all...talk about "Fast and Furious"
Now, I'm not suggesting that responsible gun owners shouldn't be able to hunt deer, etc., or enjoy target shooting competitions, but we need a MAJOR overhaul of our gun laws...we have far too many readily available to ANYONE with the cash to buy them...this isn't keeping our society safer as I've just shown...let's get to work on serious legislation.
Take a look at the link. I can't attest to its accuracy since it is wikipedia, but I'm sure it gets close enough.
I will agree with you on tanks, even though those are crew devices, and one person can't really efficiently operate one. I'll even give you grenades, mines, grenade launchers, even fully automatic submachine guns.
But knives? The military trains with those. You might have a point, they kill people, just ask serial killers and muggers. We should probably ban those too.
Well, the military trains with multiple handguns as well, fortunately they don't use the Desert Eagle .50 caliber and they just use 9mm. I'm sure gun enthusiasts won't mind giving up those and keeping the hole punching power of that .50 cal.
Rifles, we have lots of those as well. Fortunately we only have to ban a few versions of the AR-15 platform that they sell to the military, since I'd rather have the much more powerful 7.63 upper on mine. Who needs 5.56 or .223 right? And I guess I don't have to hunt with the rifles the snipers use for training either, I'm sure there are others out there to find anyway. At least they don't seem to be using bolt action or lever action rifles anymore, so those are still good.
Just to be safe we should probably ban fertilizer from being sold since people turn that into bombs all the time.
The point of my statement, which I'm sure will fly past your head, is that the military trains with weapons, also known as tools. I can use an axe to chop down a tree, cut firewood, or remove the empty space above your shoulders. One of those is bad, it doesn't mean that the tool is at fault. Only in America is there such outrage with firearms. Someone who wants to kill has many tools available. Limiting them will not stop the killing. Handguns that are semi automatic like the aforementioned Desert Eagle can hold many rounds, and one bullet from that will go through a lot of people before it stops. This ban guns nonsense does nothing to solve the problem. The most logical reason to me that the AR-15 is so popular for active shooters is because it is the most popular rifle in America, it has nothing to do with how deadly it is.
Now please stop using the military trains with XYZ to tell people what they should and should not be allowed to have in their home.
For the record, I am for sensible gun legislation, at the state level, not the federal, and I own absolutely no firearms (I'm not a gun nut or advocate).
Link: List of weapons used by the US
that's why we have licensing requirements and databases that ensure compliance for such things as operating cars, trucks, airplanes commercial watercraft, etc...i.e. all things that could cause serious injury or death if not responsibly handled...so too of course with firearms...yet we see very ineffective measures being applied in that arena...
Moreover, there are no effective measures in place that can ensure that a person with psychotic tendencies but no history yet of mental illness/treatment from purchasing firearms that are exceptionally effective at killing large numbers of people in a short amount of time...i.e. "Assault Rifles"...if there are not stringently enforced restrictions on ALL gun owners, then the 'Psycos' will bea able to get and use them...given this fact of life, the prudent approach to dramatically reducing the horror and terror of mass shootings is to deny access to ALL citizens for those particular weapons. It isn't the perfect solution, but it has already been shown to be highly effective...let's at least do that...after all, there are still many other options for hunting, target shooting and home defense.
"
"that's why we have licensing requirements and databases that ensure compliance for such things as operating cars, trucks, airplanes commercial watercraft, etc...i.e. all things that could cause serious injury or death if not responsibly handled...so too of course with firearms...yet we see very ineffective measures being applied in that arena..."
Only firearms are guaranteed as a right to you as a citizen of the United States of America. As you said, we have licensing requirements for firearms. If you don't like them, that is your issue. I agree with you that they could be better, but those regulations should be just like the ones you mentioned previously, state regulations, not federal.
"Moreover, there are no effective measures in place that can ensure that a person with psychotic tendencies but no history yet of mental illness/treatment from purchasing firearms that are exceptionally effective at killing large numbers of people in a short amount of time...i.e. 'Assault Rifles'"
Perhaps we should look into more effective measures for that, rather than just blaming the tool? When someone gets stabbed, we don't ask to ban all knives. When someone is strangled we don't ask to ban all rope. Yet when there is a shooting, except when it is black on black crime, we ask to ban all firearms. Can you tell me what an "Assault Rifle" is? I notice you like to capitalize it to make sure the AR stands out, probably just a coincidence? The semi automatic rifle is no more deadly than the semi automatic pistol until you add range, that's where the advantage is for the rifle. You can kill with either weapon.
".if there are not stringently enforced restrictions on ALL gun owners, then the 'Psycos' will bea (sic) able to get and use them...given this fact of life, the prudent approach to dramatically reducing the horror and terror of mass shootings is to deny access to ALL citizens for those particular weapons. It isn't the perfect solution, but it has already been shown to be highly effective...let's at least do that...after all, there are still many other options for hunting, target shooting and home defense."
The only people who obey restrictions are the responsible gun owners. One thing that never seemed to have been learned from prohibition is that banning something simply creates a black market for it that, shockingly, is run by criminals who don't obey restrictions. They will do nothing to keep them out of the "Psycos" hands. Maybe it takes a little longer before they go on their rampage, but they will go on it. They decide to go on it because there is something wrong with them mentally, and oddly enough it has nothing to do with the gun. No one knew that the idiot in Waukesha was going to run over a parade. Should we ban all automobiles? Or just SUVs? This is the reaction you are having, and hopefully at some point you can see how ridiculous it is.
Post the link about it being highly effective, I'll read it. There are many options for hunting, target shooting, and home defense, no one said there wasn't. Most smart gun people will tell you to get a shotgun for home defense, because high caliber handguns and rifles will go through the assailant, the walls, and possibly even into your neighbor. Especially in apartments. Buckshot is much less likely to do that, and still stop the asshat who came into your home just as well. But we can't have shotguns according to you because the military uses them.
IMO, and that of many others, we need to bring the 2nd Amendment up to the modern era...to that end, here is what Justice Scalia had to say about it...
"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited," Scalia wrote as he laid out certain exceptions. History demonstrates, Scalia said, "the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."...
I'm no Constitutional scholar, but that comment goes right to "Assault Rifles" which literally by design are much more deadly than other weapons due to their high capacity magazines, high velocity ammunition design, light weight, barrel length and accuracy. I've also provided several links and a video that all attest to the fact that our military trains its soldiers to use the M-16 primarily in semiautomatic mode, making it exactly like the AR...and not only that, there is testimony from combat veterans who NEVER used the fully automatic feature...they relied on their squad's M-249, belt-fed light machine gun...which, btw, is not able to be mass marketed to the public...am I right on that?
As far as federal regulations are concerned, there is a timeline on that you can Google...most recently there's the NFA (1934)...FFA (1938)...GCA (1968)...FOPA (1986)...Brady Act (1993)...so there's a fair amount of precedent supporting federal regulations...leaving such a topic to the states only would invite chaos with deadly consequences.
------------------
re: Mental Health, etc....
The banning of Assault Rifles gets headlines, but literally every gun control bill being put forward includes a great deal of emphasis on background checks, "Red Flags", minimum age and waiting time purchase requirements, etc...as you say "We should look into it", but unfortunately, even these facets of the problem, while very important and largely supported by gun owners, are objected to by the GOP in Congress...extremely frustrating..especially to the victims of mass shootings and their families.
------------------
None of the people who perpetrated the recent mass shootings in schools, supermarkets or music concerts were "Gang Bangers" or prior "Criminals/Bad Guys"...they were anonymous psychos...while a couple of them could have been denied firearms through effective "Red Flag" legislation, others were totally off the 'grid' and would never be found out until AFTER the shooting... and so we come back to the need for responsible gun owners to 'sacrifice' accessibility to a class of firearm for the safety of everyone else in the country...
What keeps coming back to me is the fact that having Assault Rifles provide only pleasure for their owners...that's it...they don't provide any other benefit to society (9 mm handguns in the home are better for personal defense)...yet every single school in America is now living in fear, if not terror, due to their accessibility to those psychos who would slip detection...this is not a beneficial, nor rational, tradeoff.
-------------------
Every other nation on earth has human beings with the same mix of personalities...and the ones that have banned Assault Rifles...High Capacity Magazines, etc. have unequivocally demonstrated the value of that action...there is no reason why that couldn't work here in the USA...we've done it before (Google some of the federal legislation I outlined) and there was no "Black Market" that increased their usage...so there's no evidence to support the "Prohibition" reference.
-----------------
btw, thanks for taking the time to express your opinion...much appreciated...we really do need to come together on this issue...while I honestly don't see the "NEED" for the volume of guns we have, I'm not so naive as to think we could or should try to remove them all..."Prudential Judgement" tells me that there are many, many responsible gun owners who pose no threat at all, so they should be able to go deer/duck hunting, or visit a gun range (like I used to oversee) for target practice...I, and many others, just want some small degree of 'sacrifice' by the gun community in order to effect a dramatic reduction in the horrors being reeked on too many families...sounds like you're open to that.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)