Yesterday's Mass Shooting.

S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
CunningCanuk said:
They aren’t uncomfortable for reasonable people, anyway.
Click to expand...
That's because AR-15s are for us. So they can shoot off limbs and decapitate you. So they can 1/6 you. So they can turn off your voting machine and not recognize you (citation: Jones (D) Tennessee and Pearson (D) Tennessee on MTP):cuss: disenfranchising Nashville and Shelby counties.

Jim Crow is alive and well..that's because AR-15s are for us; they want to shoot off our limbs and decapitate us.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Sickofitall420247 said:
Red flag laws need to be understood and enforced along with mental health treatments. Almost every mass shooting is a suicide at its heart. We need counselors to be able to identify someone that fits into the red flag laws and contact the correct people to take care of the matter before they decide nows the time to go. Almost every mass shooter gives hints and clues about what they are planning to do Good common sense gun control would be great but when do you want it to stop? Until every gun is outlawed. Sorry but that's never going to happen.
Click to expand...
"It's not the guns, it's the crazy people."

I don't buy the idea that US has more crazy people who are likely to take a gun into a public place and open fire. I think that is an excuse. All societies have crazy people in them. But they don't have easy access to the kind of guns that are widely available in the US. Guns are too easy to purchase, too many carry too many rounds to be called "self defense" and our current system of background checks is designed to increase sales, not screen out people who by law, should not possess one.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
DoubleAtotheRON said:
Thanks for the input... and that's why I said the same thing... It's going to get worse. And nobody has any answers on how to reverse it. Ideology and reality are two totally different things. It's a great idea to take guns off the street. Reality.. it'll never happen. Ideally, we'd like to have the criminals turn in thier weapons, along with law abiding citizens. Reality... it'll never happen.
I've studied peoples attention span for the past decade. I've produced and edited video during that time. Over the years, I can see how long my general audience will spend thier time watching them, and I have discovered that 10 years ago, most people would generally watch 100% of a 2 min video. Today, you'll see a sharp spike for 10 seconds, and then drop off to nothing. Today's visual media is overwhelming. We have too much immediate access to it that it seems to train your brain to skip, skip, skip, watch 10 seconds, skip, etc. It's been interesting to observe the human reaction to media overload. I think this contributes to the detached reality we have now... especially among the younger crowd.
Click to expand...
"nobody has any answers on how to reverse it "

Yes we do. You don't like our answer.
 
DoubleAtotheRON

DoubleAtotheRON

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
"nobody has any answers on how to reverse it "

Yes we do. You don't like our answer.
Click to expand...
Lay it on me. Some of what you're about to say is covered in that video link I just posted above. And just for the record, If I knew that every criminal gun was taken off the market and collected, I'd gladly lay mine down. I say this with such confidence because I know it'll never happen.
 
Last edited:
DIY-HP-LED

DIY-HP-LED

Well-Known Member
DoubleAtotheRON said:
Lay it on me. Some of what you're about to say is covered in that video link I just posted above. And just for the record, If I knew that every criminal gun was taken off the market and collected, I'd gladly lay mine down.
Click to expand...
You don't need to, just register it so you can pay the annual tax that covers the damage they do to the federal government who has the power to do it, all it takes is new law. They could also ban all semi-automatic weapons if they wished or limit mag size, they already regulate "arms" and even automatic weapons and calibers. If they can regulate you down to .50 cal. they can regulate you down to .22, the feds have the constitutional power to tax guns annually and register them for taxation purposes, to increase the burden, liability and expense of gun ownership in America. Why do you think gun nuts freak out, if it looks like the democrats are gonna be in power.

The second is not as big an impediment to getting rid of guns in America as you might think. Just 3% of the population own 50% of the guns about 200 million and as long as the secure them are not mental cases and pay $100 each while registering them to keep them every year could yield a few and owning 10 would be expensive. Just think 3% of the population paying 100 x 200 million =20 billion bucks to the government every year and if all the 40% of the US population wants to keep their guns, it would mean 40 billion in annual revenue! Think of all the money it can save taxpayers, however if you add up the costs of gun ownership to America, $40 billion might not cover it and the system administration so say $200 for the annual tax, plus a registration fee, or ya could just turn it in for destruction and avoid the whole mess. I mean over a decade it should reduce the numbers of guns in America by quite a bit and save a lot of kid's lives and get the gun nut freeloaders off the taxpayers backs.
 
Last edited:
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
DoubleAtotheRON said:
Lay it on me. Some of what you're about to say is covered in that video link I just posted above. And just for the record, If I knew that every criminal gun was taken off the market and collected, I'd gladly lay mine down.
Click to expand...
"I'll gladly lay down mine". Quit being so melodramatic. Nobody is seriously talking about taking your gun away. Get that through your thick head. There are about 110,000,000 gun owners in this country and this year looks to have 500 mass shootings. You are calling me stupid by claiming I'm saying all 110 million people must lose their right to own that stupid piece of toxic masculinity to stop 500 from committing mass murder. I'm saying nothing of the sort, nor is any serious politician saying so. Start reading what people say without overlaying your bias onto it before you begin reading.

Also, I'm not criticizing gun ownership by hunters, competitive target shooting, antique collectors or people who simply admire a finely crafted machine and want to own one. It's the person who buys one on the premise that they need it to defend themselves. That's plain stupid. But I'm not even saying they shouldn't be allowed to be stupid. Can't fix that.

The objective is to save lives, not take yer gun. I'll give you a few of my answers. It's an incomplete list, which is why I also support funding into research into the subject. I do not claim this will end all shootings. I claim the above will save lives. Most of the below have already been proven to do so in the US.

The first answer is to make guns harder to buy. Eliminate the gun show and personal sales loopholes. Require a permit be obtained before a gun can be purchased that includes background checks and gun safety class that includes information about suicide prevention, safe gun storage, fingerprinting for identification purposes and a demonstration that the prospective gun buyer can safely operate the machine. Beef up background checks, give it more time and a way for people to object if they have reservations about them purchasing a gun. Raise the age limit to at least 21, I'd prefer age 30 because by then, everybody's brain has grown in. But 18 is too young.

The second answer is to limit the number of rounds that can be held in a magazine or cartridge. 50 is too many. Would 10 be too few?

The third answer is to fund research and a review board that is chartered with the objective to bring the US's gun homicide and accident rate to that of other similar nations. Set goals with a timeline to achieve them. A draconian requirement would be triggered if goals are not met within the allotted time. Such as putting limits on gun sales that go beyond those outlined above.

Oregon Measure 114 contains much of what I suggest. It's currently stalled out in a hick judge's court in Harney County. Legal objections are funded by the gun lobby.
 
Last edited:
DoubleAtotheRON

DoubleAtotheRON

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
"I'll gladly lay down mine". Quit being so melodramatic. Nobody is seriously talking about taking your gun away. Get that through your thick head. There are about 110,000,000 gun owners in this country and this year looks to have 500 mass shootings. You are calling me stupid by claiming I'm saying all 110 million people must lose their right to own that stupid piece of toxic masculinity to stop 500 from committing mass murder. I'm saying nothing of the sort, nor is any serious politician saying so. Start reading what people say without overlaying your bias onto it before you begin reading.

Also, I'm not criticizing gun ownership by hunters, competitive target shooting, antique collectors or people who simply admire a finely crafted machine and want to own one. It's the person who buys one on the premise that they need it to defend themselves. That's plain stupid. But I'm not even saying they shouldn't be allowed to be stupid. Can't fix that.

The objective is to save lives, not take yer gun. I'll give you a few of my answers. It's an incomplete list, which is why I also support funding into research into the subject. I do not claim this will end all shootings. I claim the above will save lives. Most of the below have already been proven to do so in the US.

The first answer is to make guns harder to buy. Eliminate the gun show and personal sales loopholes. Require a permit be obtained before a gun can be purchased that includes background checks and gun safety class that includes information about suicide prevention, safe gun storage, fingerprinting for identification purposes and a demonstration that the prospective gun buyer can safely operate the machine. Beef up background checks, give it more time and a way for people to object if they have reservations about them purchasing a gun. Raise the age limit to at least 21, I'd prefer age 30 because by then, everybody's brain has grown in. But 18 is too young.

The second answer is to limit the number of rounds that can be held in a magazine or cartridge. 50 is too many. Would 10 be too few?

The third answer is to fund research and a review board that is chartered with the objective to bring the US's gun homicide and accident rate to that of other similar nations. Set goals with a timeline to achieve them. A draconian requirement would be triggered if goals are not met within the allotted time. Such as putting limits on gun sales that go beyond those outlined above.

Oregon Measure 114 contains much of what I suggest. It's currently stalled out in a hick judge's court in Harney County. Legal objections are funded by the gun lobby.
Click to expand...
I agree with all of that....You first answer, .. we're going backwards with this. Oklahoma used to be a CCW lic. State only, and believe me, the training was lackluster. I saw people in my class back in the 90's that looks like they would be better off carrying a butter knife. But, as of Nov 2021, you do not need a lic. to open or conceal carry as long as you're 18 and up. No background checks anymore, no training, and TX and FL are following this model as well, and I don't agree with it.
Second point.... 6+1 round mag is fine with me. If you can't down an attack with 7 shots, you need to practice more.
Your Third.... Why we don't have more of this is beyond me. I suppose we'll see how this works out for OR. If it does, then by god let's do it.
 
S

Sickofitall420247

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
"I'll gladly lay down mine". Quit being so melodramatic. Nobody is seriously talking about taking your gun away. Get that through your thick head. There are about 110,000,000 gun owners in this country and this year looks to have 500 mass shootings. You are calling me stupid by claiming I'm saying all 110 million people must lose their right to own that stupid piece of toxic masculinity to stop 500 from committing mass murder. I'm saying nothing of the sort, nor is any serious politician saying so. Start reading what people say without overlaying your bias onto it before you begin reading.

Also, I'm not criticizing gun ownership by hunters, competitive target shooting, antique collectors or people who simply admire a finely crafted machine and want to own one. It's the person who buys one on the premise that they need it to defend themselves. That's plain stupid. But I'm not even saying they shouldn't be allowed to be stupid. Can't fix that.

The objective is to save lives, not take yer gun. I'll give you a few of my answers. It's an incomplete list, which is why I also support funding into research into the subject. I do not claim this will end all shootings. I claim the above will save lives. Most of the below have already been proven to do so in the US.

The first answer is to make guns harder to buy. Eliminate the gun show and personal sales loopholes. Require a permit be obtained before a gun can be purchased that includes background checks and gun safety class that includes information about suicide prevention, safe gun storage, fingerprinting for identification purposes and a demonstration that the prospective gun buyer can safely operate the machine. Beef up background checks, give it more time and a way for people to object if they have reservations about them purchasing a gun. Raise the age limit to at least 21, I'd prefer age 30 because by then, everybody's brain has grown in. But 18 is too young.

The second answer is to limit the number of rounds that can be held in a magazine or cartridge. 50 is too many. Would 10 be too few?

The third answer is to fund research and a review board that is chartered with the objective to bring the US's gun homicide and accident rate to that of other similar nations. Set goals with a timeline to achieve them. A draconian requirement would be triggered if goals are not met within the allotted time. Such as putting limits on gun sales that go beyond those outlined above.

Oregon Measure 114 contains much of what I suggest. It's currently stalled out in a hick judge's court in Harney County. Legal objections are funded by the gun lobby.
Click to expand...
Why do you not consider better mental health screenings a valid counter measure?
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
DoubleAtotheRON said:
I agree with all of that....You first answer, .. we're going backwards with this. Oklahoma used to be a CCW lic. State only, and believe me, the training was lackluster. I saw people in my class back in the 90's that looks like they would be better off carrying a butter knife. But, as of Nov 2021, you do not need a lic. to open or conceal carry as long as you're 18 and up. No background checks anymore, no training, and TX and FL are following this model as well, and I don't agree with it.
Second point.... 6+1 round mag is fine with me. If you can't down an attack with 7 shots, you need to practice more.
Your Third.... Why we don't have more of this is beyond me. I suppose we'll see how this works out for OR. If it does, then by god let's do it.
Click to expand...
Who said anything about CCW? Who said anything about your training class?

I didn't even mention those. I talked about the need to complete some very basic requirements in order to get a permit to buy a gun. Regardless how you "feel" about it, places where that requirement was put in place showed marked reductions in gun homicides and suicides. It's about saving lives, remember?

publichealth.jhu.edu

Firearm Purchaser Licensing | Center for Gun Violence Solutions

Firearm Purchaser Licensing laws, or permit-to-purchase, are a complement to existing background check systems. They require prospective firearm purchasers to first obtain a license. These laws are associated with lower rates of diversions of firearms for use in crime, homicide, mass shootings...
publichealth.jhu.edu publichealth.jhu.edu

Research shows that Permit-to-Purchase laws are one of the most effective ways to reduce many forms of gun violence including gun homicides and suicides.

  • Studies show that Connecticut’s purchaser licensing law was associated with significant reductions in rates of firearm homicide and firearm suicide and the repeal of Missouri’s purchaser licensing law was associated with significant increases in these outcome. 1,2 The most recent study estimates Connecticut’s law reduced firearm homicide rates by 28 percent and firearm suicide rates by 33 percent over a 22-year period; the repeal of Missouri’s law increased firearm homicides by 47 percent and firearm suicide rates by 23 percent.3
  • Another study found evidence that these changes in handgun purchaser licensing laws were linked to decreases in fatal shootings of police officers in Connecticut and increases in shootings of police in Missouri.
  • States with strong handgun purchaser licensing laws were associated with 56 percent lower rates of fatal mass shooting incidents, and 67 percent fewer mass shooting victims.4
  • Permit-to-purchase laws were associated with 11 percent reduction in firearm homicides in urban counties from 1984-2015.5
  • Permit-to-purchase laws are also associated with significantly lower rates of guns being diverted for criminal use shortly after retail sale.


OK, so we agree on restricting magazine so there is that. blah, blah, blah. What are you going to do about it? How many must die before you feel like doing somethng?
 
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
DIY-HP-LED said:
Trump's legal issues, J6 and the republicans in the house and especially in the red states are helping a lot with that.
Click to expand...
With what happened in Tennessee, we are re-energized..seems State House Leadership have been playing games with Nashville and Shelby counties' 1A.

That can't and won't stand in this Republic.

This is going to haunt them, that they will have wished they gave The Tennessee Three the time on the floor to peacefully protest the killing of three 9-year-olds, not at a Baptist Church School but a Christian Church School a week prior.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Sickofitall420247 said:
Why do you not consider better mental health screenings a valid counter measure?
Click to expand...
Have you been to see a psychiatrist? It's an art not a science. Also, who appoints those counselors? How would class, racial and gender bias be eliminated? I can see this as spinning out of control and turning into a shit show. I'm more aligned with objective criteria to regulate gun ownership than subjective ones. Such as, criminal background checks, reports of domestic violence and other non-arbitrary reasons for denying the right of a person to own a gun.

But do tell. How would that work? Can you provide any links to give me a better understanding of what you suggest.
 
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
DoubleAtotheRON said:
I agree with all of that....You first answer, .. we're going backwards with this. Oklahoma used to be a CCW lic. State only, and believe me, the training was lackluster. I saw people in my class back in the 90's that looks like they would be better off carrying a butter knife. But, as of Nov 2021, you do not need a lic. to open or conceal carry as long as you're 18 and up. No background checks anymore, no training, and TX and FL are following this model as well, and I don't agree with it.
Second point.... 6+1 round mag is fine with me. If you can't down an attack with 7 shots, you need to practice more.
Your Third.... Why we don't have more of this is beyond me. I suppose we'll see how this works out for OR. If it does, then by god let's do it.
Click to expand...
But that doesn't make it right and you vote those people in.
 
doublejj

doublejj

Well-Known Member
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top