Coward Murders Children in Florida

[Heathen Hammer]

What's illogical about having proper federal gun registry measures, background checks,

Already a thing.

or things like banning types of guns that does not have the purpose of defense?

Any gun has a purpose of defense. Plus AR-15 (I assume you are talking about that one) is a glorified hunting rifle that is made to look like military one, but has all the technical capabilities of a basic hunting rifle. Pretty mediocre one too. Its just the dumb housewives or uneducated liberals who want to ban it because it kinda looks like M4A1 and to them it looks like "scary "military assault weapon". So my point still stands, advocacy for gun control isn't grounded in logic and reason, it is purely based on appeal to emotions of segments of society that are least educated on the issue.

[Cyclops]

Seriously the NRA line has been "what they needed was an armed guy in the school" seriously? They had one. Now they're saying "cops can't protect you" which is it?

Already a thing.

Indeed. I think a small number of weapons dealers exploit inconsistent application of laws (there's some "gun show" special case that gets a lot of attention) so the loopholes should be addressed before or at least as part of a response to gun deaths.

Any gun has a purpose of defense. Plus AR-15 (I assume you are talking about that one) is a glorified hunting rifle that is made to look like military one, but has all the technical capabilities of a basic hunting rifle. Pretty mediocre one too. Its just the dumb housewives or uneducated liberals who want to ban it because it kinda looks like M4A1 and to them it looks like "scary "military assault weapon". So my point still stands, advocacy for gun control isn't grounded in logic and reason, it is purely based on appeal to emotions of segments of society that are least educated on the issue.

As is a lot of pro-gun advocacy. When you have a movie star waving a musket acting as though he's a founding father resisting an evil tyranny, when in fact he's a representative of an industry group then you know the argument is in the heart, not the head.

Its volatile and the legitimate concerns of many groups in the argument get swept up into red/blue tit for tattery, which simplifies and dumbs down every point so two reps can line up their partisans. I had hope for Trump that he would be unattached and make objective decisions, but he's piped up with some NRA crap so it looks like he's under control.

I like these threads because you get some decent info in among the usual barking.

To think that the swamp wants the serfs and peasants armed is laughable. Modern oligarchs want the masses disarmed and unarmed so they cannot stand in the way of the otherwise inexorable drive to global collectivization.

Yeah nah, money talks. If you're suggesting the arms industry doesn't have profit as its number one priority (also #2 and #3) you may want to learn a bit more about the US and how it works. I mean I live ten thousand kms away and I can smell the money, and the , from here. The NRA tried to get involved in Australian politics when Howard got the shooters (they gave up a lot more than necessary as an act of good faith) to placate the Nervous Nellies and we told them to GTFO. Think about that, a US industry advocacy body tried to interfere in a foreign country's politics so domestic sales wouldn't be affected by successful foreign examples of gun control. They are as thoughtlessly immoral as the tobacco industry: looking to them for input on gun control is like asking Pablo Escobar his ideas about reforming criminals.

[Heathen Hammer]

Seriously the NRA line has been "what they needed was an armed guy in the school" seriously?

So should we "trust professionals" or not? Which one is it?

[/FONT][/COLOR][/LEFT]

Indeed. I think a small number of weapons dealers exploit inconsistent application of laws (there's some "gun show" special case that gets a lot of attention) so the loopholes should be addressed before or at least as part of a response to gun deaths.

Won't make a difference.

[LEFT][COLOR=#000000][FONT=Verdana]

As is a lot of pro-gun advocacy. When you have a movie star waving a musket acting as though he's a founding father resisting an evil tyranny, when in fact he's a representative of an industry group then you know the argument is in the heart, not the head.

Its volatile and the legitimate concerns of many groups in the argument get swept up into red/blue tit for tattery, which simplifies and dumbs down every point so two reps can line up their partisans. I had hope for Trump that he would be unattached and make objective decisions, but he's piped up with some NRA crap so it looks like he's under control.

I like these threads because you get some decent info in among the usual barking.

My opinion is based on facts and logic, not what Heston said. School shootings happen not because one can buy a gun, they happen because a student decides that he should go out and kill people. Let's assume that the alt-liberal pipe dream comes true and only cops and alphabet agency spooks have guns. Then what? These kids would just make fertilizer bombs or drive into crowds during rush hour. It would change the method, but wouldn't tackle the issue.
Truth is, US already has gun control (in fact, gun control itself is a problem, as we can see with Detroit and Chiraq), and guns aren't the problem.

[Vanoi]

Do you know Michigan's gun laws HH? Just curious because I am looking at them now and they don't have much gun control at all. I mean in Michigan you can circumvent federal law and buy a handgun when ur only 18. Does that sound like gun control?

[Gaidin]

Do you know Michigan's gun laws HH? Just curious because I am looking at them now and they don't have much gun control at all. I mean in Michigan you can circumvent federal law and buy a handgun when ur only 18. Does that sound like gun control?

You can circumvent nearly everything federal if it’s manufactured and sold intrastate.

[NorseThing]

Do you know Michigan's gun laws HH? Just curious because I am looking at them now and they don't have much gun control at all. I mean in Michigan you can circumvent federal law and buy a handgun when ur only 18. Does that sound like gun control?

Why is age 18 of special interest in your post regarding Michigan gun laws? Are you forgetting that the federal laws is 21 for handguns, but states can write their own rules for in state transactions. Now there is talk about changes to some states (Florida) laws to make it 21 for rifles as well. Might start looking in wiki: Gun laws in the U.S. by state Oh and in Michigan, since you brought it up -- hand gun sales need to be registered with the local LEO per the wiki notes (Handgun sales are required to be registered to local law enforcement.)

[Vanoi]

You can circumvent nearly everything federal if it’s manufactured and sold intrastate.

You're missing the point. HH claimed gun control was the problem in Detroit. Michigan doesn't really have strict gun laws at all. So claiming gun control is a problem is completely unfounded.


Norse, I mentioned that example to show the amount of gun control Michigan has. It ain't much different than my own very gun-friendly state of South Carolina.

[Heathen Hammer]

You can buy firearms here when you are 19, if I'm not mistaken, so having 1 year difference from Canadian law isn't really a sign of lack of gun control and age isn't the only factor either.

[Vanoi]

I am still waiting for you to mention the gun control Michigan has that isn't working. They don't ban guns, they allow open carry and concealed carry, no magazine restrictions. So what's the problem?

[Heathen Hammer]

I guess I goofed in regards to Detroit, but my point still stands in regards to Chiraq.

[Derpy Hooves]

Not just one officer did not go inside, but three others.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/23/polit...ies/index.html

[Love Mountain]

People keep saying that "US has a gun problem" while it really is not even the case. Au contraire, US needs to relax its gun laws, especially in places like New York and Illinois.

You keep saying we don't have a gun problem, yet people are dying from guns.

Indeed. Advocacy for stricter gun control is illogical and is simply based on emotions. Wouldn't be surprised if actual gun manufacturers would lobby for that, since gun sales actually soar when another cringy liberal demands ban on guns.

Gun manufacturers wouldn't because they are interested in long term gun sales. On the other hand, every gun manufacturer throws a party for their accountants when a shooting becomes a national tragedy because they know their sales will spike. National tragedies spike outrage, outrage spikes clamor for gun control, fear of gun control throws gunowners into a buying frenzy. Gun manufacturers fund the NRA and lobby politicians for that reason, to squash gun control bills in committee.

No one said it'll be enough in every single case, but that doesn't mean it can never work. There are numerous cases of shootings being stopped by armed bystanders. The reason you don't much about them is because everyone is saved from death.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...419-story.html

Hey just like, "Law won't stop determined criminals from getting guns". No one said it'll be enough in every case Dr. Legend, but that doesn't mean it'll never work. There are numerous cases of NICBCS stopping criminals, felons, etc from buying guns over the counter.

Already a thing.

Definitely not.

Any gun has a purpose of defense. Plus AR-15 (I assume you are talking about that one) is a glorified hunting rifle that is made to look like military one, but has all the technical capabilities of a basic hunting rifle. Pretty mediocre one too. Its just the dumb housewives or uneducated liberals who want to ban it because it kinda looks like M4A1 and to them it looks like "scary "military assault weapon". So my point still stands, advocacy for gun control isn't grounded in logic and reason, it is purely based on appeal to emotions of segments of society that are least educated on the issue.

Every gun is made with a purpose, to be a lethal weapon. Demanding we closely examine who is allowed to have a lethal weapon is far from controversial.

[PointOfViewGun]

Already a thing.

Any gun has a purpose of defense. Plus AR-15 (I assume you are talking about that one) is a glorified hunting rifle that is made to look like military one, but has all the technical capabilities of a basic hunting rifle. Pretty mediocre one too. Its just the dumb housewives or uneducated liberals who want to ban it because it kinda looks like M4A1 and to them it looks like "scary "military assault weapon". So my point still stands, advocacy for gun control isn't grounded in logic and reason, it is purely based on appeal to emotions of segments of society that are least educated on the issue.

Still no word on your made up statements about UK?

Nope. Proper federal gun registry measures and background checks is not a thing in USA. There are too many loopholes for any such measure and the existing registry is made ineffective by law. Effectively, there is no federal background check or gun registry.

Saying AR-15 is a glorified hunting rifle is like saying M252 is a glorified sniper rifle. With such stupid you're not really helping your case. Defense in a civilian setting is not supposed to be made in hundreds of meters of range with the power to slaughter dozens of people. Some people want to ban it because it's the semi-automatic only version of the military rifle M16.

[Prodromos]

Hey just like, "Law won't stop determined criminals from getting guns". No one said it'll be enough in every case Dr. Legend, but that doesn't mean it'll never work. There are numerous cases of NICBCS stopping criminals, felons, etc from buying guns over the counter.

No one said that banning guns wouldn't save any lives; it just wouldn't be worth it. It would do much more harm than good.

Millions of people die every year due to car crashes. Should we lower the speed limit to 20 mph? "If it saves one life"...

[PointOfViewGun]

No one said that banning guns wouldn't save any lives; it just wouldn't be worth it. It would do much more harm than good.

Millions of people die every year due to car crashes. Should we lower the speed limit to 20 mph? "If it saves one life"...

Funny how in your example you're not making a jump from no regulation to regulation, you're making a jump from current regulation to stricter regulation. Cars are already regulated. Roads have speed limits. You need a license to drive one. People sitting in the front must wear seat belts. Not every kind of vehicle can be used on the roads. So on and on...

[Prodromos]

Funny how in your example you're not making a jump from no regulation to regulation, you're making a jump from current regulation to stricter regulation. Cars are already regulated. Roads have speed limits. You need a license to drive one. People sitting in the front must wear seat belts. Not every kind of vehicle can be used on the roads. So on and on...

Well apparently cars aren't regulated enough since thousands are killed every year. Don't you want to save lives? If you don't support reducing the speed limit to 20mph, then you clearly want people to die just so you can drive fast. Why does any regular civilian need to drive at 50 or 60 mph? Is it more important than saving thousands of children from death?

[PointOfViewGun]

Well apparently cars aren't regulated enough since thousands are killed every year. Don't you want to save lives? If you don't support reducing the speed limit to 20mph, then you clearly want people to die just so you can drive fast. Why does any regular civilian need to drive at 50 or 60 mph? Is it more important than saving thousands of children from death?

Sigh... Why are we wasting time on such obviously faulty arguments? While you probably think that you're striking a very basic but important note you're merely highlighting how pathetic your position is. You're asking for something that's already done? School zone speed limit is usually around 25 mph. Arguing about the difference between 20mph and 60mph would only be analogous to having magazine or ammunition limits which doesn't exist in most cases any ways. Basically, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

[Prodromos]

Sigh... Why are we wasting time on such obviously faulty arguments? While you probably think that you're striking a very basic but important note you're merely highlighting how pathetic your position is. You're asking for something that's already done? School zone speed limit is usually around 25 mph. Arguing about the difference between 20mph and 60mph would only be analogous to having magazine or ammunition limits which doesn't exist in most cases any ways. Basically, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

Do most crashes happen in school zones? Who said anything about any school zones? You want guns "regulated" everywhere, not just in school zones, right?

Thousands of people die due to driving too fast. Their lives would be saved by reducing the speed limit to 20 mph. Don't you want to save lives? If it saves one life, isn't it worth it?

[PointOfViewGun]

Do most crashes happen in school zones? Who said anything about any school zones? You want guns "regulated" everywhere, not just in school zones, right?

Thousands of people die due to driving too fast. Their lives would be saved by reducing the speed limit to 20 mph. Don't you want to save lives? If it saves one life, isn't it worth it?

You talked specifically about children deaths. Now you're talking about all. Do thousands of people die because of high speeds that are still lower than the speed limit of the area they're in?

[mrmouth]

Trump wants to ban the sale of the bump stock. Not that the reputable retail carries such an add on device, but this will not change a blessed thing. The Las Vegas shooter is reputed to have used bump stocks and this may be way it is in the pulic mind at the moment. However, semiautomatic weapons not designed to be fully automatic may jam from over heating. This is probably what stopped the carnage in Vegas.

I could make one in a few hours in my garage with my woodworking tools plus some wire and metal. Of course for about $130, the rich guy does not need to make his own until after the ban. I wonder, do rich guys have wood and metal working tools?

So I cannot applaud the action, but I suppose it takes away a bumper sticker or two from the left in the next election cycle.

I had no idea what a bump stock was but when the first videos hit Twitter that night gun people were accurately identifying it as a bump stock and not an automatic weapon. They are a joke in gun circles because the idea is to actually hit something. The bump stock is typically less accurate than even automatic fire which itself is a basic misunderstanding of the circumstances in which automatic fire would want to be employed. And it's bizarre that this wealthy guy would even use that thing when he certainly had the money and means to modify his rifles. Clearly he thought time was a concern and wanted to do the most damage but a trained shooter could likely have done the same or more with semi-auto fire after the initial crowd dispersal. I'd be far more worried about a marksman with an old wooden mini 14 shooting at me than a range jockey with a blacked out civilian ego rifle. Show someone the old mini 14 and they would call that a hunting rifle or something. Show someone the blacked out version of the same gun and it is automatically an assault rifle.

This video shows you could achieve a similar rate of fire just through practice of bump firing. But it isnt something anyone takes seriously because people shoot to hit something, be it a target or an animal.




And of course we now know how awful of an institutional failure this whole thing was. Saying that authorities had ample warning is a massive understatement.