# A letter to the boys & young men of America



## EllisRedding

> A response to the mass shooting in Florida.
> 
> The bodies aren’t even cold yet and already you are being blamed.
> 
> Yes you.
> 
> All of you.
> 
> The boys and young men who will grow up to become one half of America’s future.
> Once again, due to society’s failure to raise you, to teach you, to properly guide you on your path to manhood, your mere existence is being held responsible for seventeen more deaths—this time in Florida, and once again, at a school. The headlines of the last few days say it all:
> 
> “Guns don’t kill people; men and boys kill people, experts say”
> -USA TODAY
> 
> “Michael Ian Black reacts to Florida shooting: Boys are broken”
> -New York Daily News
> 
> “How Gun Violence And Toxic Masculinity Are Linked, In 8 Tweets”
> -The Huffington Post
> 
> “Toxic white masculinity: The killer that haunts American life”
> -Salon
> 
> “Toxic Masculinity Is Killing Us”
> -The Boston Globe
> 
> “Toxic Masculinity Is Killing Us”
> -Harpers Bazaar
> 
> “Don’t Blame Mental Illness for Mass Shootings; Blame Men”
> -Politico
> 
> In the handful of decades I’ve been alive, I’ve seen America shift from a culture of responsibility to one of blame. We don’t solve problems anymore. We cry, we pray for, we seek to find closure, and then finally, slaughter a sacrificial lamb for our sins. When I was young and Columbine happened, that lamb was Marilyn Manson and video games. Before that, it was D&D and Twisted Sister. These days, though, as body counts continue to rise and excuses continue to vanish, the lamb America has chosen to sacrifice is you. Rather than take responsibility for the seeds we’ve sown, the culture we built, and the disaster you’ve been left to inherit, we as a nation have chosen to lie to ourselves. To listen and believe those who claim that the answer is simple: “Boys are simply born bad.”
> 
> As an aging Gen Xer watching this tragedy unfold, I can’t help but look back at my youth and realize we were the dry run for this “crisis of masculinity” as the media likes to call it. In my time I’ve watched as fathers were pushed out of the home, separated from their children, and their role in society debased and devalued. Like you, I was taught male behavior was bad behavior. That I was broken and needed to be fixed. Drugs, therapy, mass socialization were required to save me from my most innate instincts—
> 
> —the need compete.
> 
> —the drive to create.
> 
> —the urge to protect.
> 
> —the desire for female affection.
> 
> Like you, I was told these instincts were not only wrong, but dangerous. That due to my Original Sin of being born a boy, I was destined to mature into a lustful monster and an oppressor of women. All this was burned into me before I even reached college, where campus policy actually assumed all men to be rapists waiting to happen.
> 
> It isn’t hard to see how we got here, to an age when America is more than willing to sacrifice its boys. To quote Fight Club, “We’re a generation of men raised by women.” And the women who raised my generation had a saying: All men are pigs. But there’s another saying those same women were enamored with and that is: The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world.
> 
> So here we are, coming close to fifty years of single mothers raising their boys as if they were animals. Two generations of young men raised to believe they’re broken, immoral, and dangerous. That their natural state, if left unchecked and unmedicated, is a sexual ticking time bomb of rape and abuse. Half a century of academia peddling a grim version of history that holds your gender personally responsible for all the wrongs ever to have happened in the world. And a press, that at this very moment, is blaming YOU for every school shooting to have ever occurred.
> 
> After all this, how could there not be a crisis of masculinity?
> 
> So to the boys and young men of America, believe me when I say it isn’t you who should be apologizing for the state of our world today. This mess was set in motion long before you were born.
> 
> You are not bad.
> 
> You are not broken.
> 
> You are not inherently evil or a sexual abuser in waiting.
> 
> You are boys who were robbed of your right to be men.
> 
> All your life you’ve been told to act, think, and behave like women. To suppress your passions, your pride, your need to compete and drive to achieve.
> 
> Now society is crumbling around us.
> 
> Feminizing boys didn’t make better men. It’s resulted in broken homes and shattered families and record suicide rates. It’s destroying any notion of a healthy partnership between men and women, and is pushing us ever closer to total collapse of gender relations.
> 
> Boys, we don’t need you to be like women, the world has plenty of women, already.
> 
> What the world needs now more than ever is for you to be men.
> 
> For you to grow-up, to grow strong, and do what men do.
> 
> For it is men’s strength and determination that tamed the wilderness, built civilization, and has kept the world fed despite all predictions we’d all die starving before the year 2000. It’s men’s curiosity that lead us to explore the oceans, to conquer space, and peer into the tiniest of microcosms of the human body. It was men who built the cities we inhabit, the luxuries we enjoy, the medicines that keep us alive. Men built the road, the plumbing, the electrical grid, the phone in your hand, the internet it’s connected to.
> 
> Men have always been innovators, explores, defenders, and leaders.
> 
> But most importantly, men have always been fathers.
> 
> So to the boys and young men of America, please read this and take every word to heart.
> 
> The world needs you.


http://jishirofinney.com/index.php/2018/02/17/533/

Here is a question to add to the original article (based on a conversation with several females). Do you view the article as attacking women (i.e. women are responsible for what has happened to men)? Interested if men vs women reading the article come out with a different take.


----------



## Yeswecan

From my understanding those who perpetrated the killings are on or where on prescription medications. The drugging of America. 

“You're painfully alive in a drugged and dying culture.” 
Richard Yates, Revolutionary Road

Being born a male as an answer to why does not do it for me.


----------



## Notself

I am terrified for my son. I don't see anything good coming to him as he grows up beyond what I can provide. I'm pretty sure the world will be a much worse place when he's my age - if he makes it that long.


----------



## uhtred

It would be interesting to see statistics. A LOT of people are on mediation (way too many IMHO), so the question is whether those on medication are more likely to be shooters than those who are not. Then of course the question is cause vs. correlation. 



Yeswecan said:


> From my understanding those who perpetrated the killings are on or where on prescription medications. The drugging of America.
> 
> “You're painfully alive in a drugged and dying culture.”
> Richard Yates, Revolutionary Road
> 
> Being born a male as an answer to why does not do it for me.


----------



## arbitrator

*I've got more than a strange, fleeting feeling that these kids from that Florida high school are going to ultimately turn the gun laws and the NRA on its ear!

I see where yet another heavily-funded NRA-backed GOP Florida Congressman has decided not to rerun for his Congressional seat!*


----------



## Yeswecan

arbitrator said:


> *I've got more than a strange, fleeting feeling that these kids from that Florida high school are going to ultimately turn the gun laws and the NRA on its ear!
> 
> I see where yet another heavily-funded NRA-backed GOP Florida Congressman has decided not to rerun for his Congressional seat!*



Nothing will happen. The upset dies down. People forget. Move on. Remember, the attention span of many is very short. Their memory much shorter.


----------



## samyeagar

This excerpt from one of the articles above kind of stood out to me...



> After all, our culture is saturated in messages—whether in the media, in our military, in sports, at the workplace, or in our education and health care systems—that embrace and even endorse a distorted view of masculinity, which tends to value and encourage expressions of aggression by men.


I think there may be a distorted view of masculinity, but it is pretty much the polar opposite of what that author claims it is.


----------



## EllisRedding

...


----------



## arbitrator

Yeswecan said:


> Nothing will happen. The upset dies down. People forget. Move on. Remember, the attention span of many is very short. Their memory much shorter.


*...only until the next mass shooting by assasin with an assault rifle at a school!

Does the assasins right to make use of that assault rifle far outweigh the kids rights to be protected from it?

Tell me! When is it ever going to end? 

The deafening silence and the gross inaction by the NRA would suggest, "Never!"
*


----------



## Thor

Back in the 1930's we had John Wayne and Clark Gable. They were masculine men and they portrayed masculine characters everybody wanted to emulate. Toxically masculine men by today's definition. In the 1920's we had Charles Lindbergh. In the 1940's we had The Greatest Generation win WWII.

And no mass school shootings. 

Today we have Generation Snow Flake.

I'm trying to figure out where masculinity is the problem here. Are the Snowflakes exhibiting more masculinity than was in place 50+ years ago?


----------



## Sawney Beane

I normally stay out of these discussions, but I wonder if somebody can enlighten me.

From over here, there seems to be a view in America that when compared to the threat of the federal government rocking up to oppress the American people, that the deaths of a few dozen children per year is an acceptable loss. That the price of freedom isn't eternal vigilance, but eternal vigilance and some schoolkids. Nobody comes out and says so in so many words, but that seems to be the bottom line.

Is this actually the way this is considered?


----------



## Yeswecan

arbitrator said:


> *...only until the next mass shooting by assasin with an assault rifle at a school!
> 
> Does the assasins right to make use of that assault rifle far outweigh the kids rights to be protected from it?
> 
> Tell me! When is it ever going to end?
> *


Assault rifle being banned will not stop guns from entering schools. Hand guns, BB guns, shot guns, etc all make it into the schools. However, it needs to start somewhere. Ban the AR. Furthermore, does anyone in a non-combat zone need an assault rifle? Certainly not. Time to ban the AR. 

It will end with metal detectors at each door that is open for allowing students into the school. Armed security. Vigilant teachers. My daughter school had an incident. New student that was being bullied. Student left campus and returned through the only doors available to make entry. The secretary stopped the student and searched his backpack. Hand gun found. Great on the secretary for confronting! Now, if the secretary did not confront and a metal detector would need to be passed through the student would have been caught at that point. 

Sadly, this is what schools have become.


----------



## EllisRedding

I will say, in this specific instance, we actually had an opportunity for the whole "See Something Say Something" to finally pay off, yet nada ...


----------



## sokillme

arbitrator said:


> *I've got more than a strange, fleeting feeling that these kids from that Florida high school are going to ultimately turn the gun laws and the NRA on its ear!
> 
> I see where yet another heavily-funded NRA-backed GOP Florida Congressman has decided not to rerun for his Congressional seat!*


wanna bet?


----------



## Yeswecan

Sawney Beane said:


> I normally stay out of these discussions, but I wonder if somebody can enlighten me.
> 
> From over here, there seems to be a view in America that when compared to the threat of the federal government rocking up to oppress the American people, that the deaths of a few dozen children per year is an acceptable loss. That the price of freedom isn't eternal vigilance, but eternal vigilance and some schoolkids. Nobody comes out and says so in so many words, but that seems to be the bottom line.
> 
> Is this actually the way this is considered?


It goes beyond that. Disarming a law abiding citizen allows the criminal element to do as they please without recourse. In short, there is no way the criminal element will give up their guns and become law abiding citizens because the federal government created a law to have guns taken off the streets.


----------



## jorgegene

Sawney Beane said:


> I normally stay out of these discussions, but I wonder if somebody can enlighten me.
> 
> From over here, there seems to be a view in America that when compared to the threat of the federal government rocking up to oppress the American people, that the deaths of a few dozen children per year is an acceptable loss. That the price of freedom isn't eternal vigilance, but eternal vigilance and some schoolkids. Nobody comes out and says so in so many words, but that seems to be the bottom line.
> 
> Is this actually the way this is considered?


"Sen. John F. Kennedy's statement, Know Your Lawmakers, Guns, April 1960, p. 4 (1960): "By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia,' the 'security' of the nation, and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms,' our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny which gave rise to the Second Amendment will ever be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important."


Sen. Hubert Humphrey's statement, Know Your Lawmakers, Guns, Feb. 1960, p. 4 (1960): "Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."

because we remember Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, Yosef Stalin, Pol Pot and many others, whom all made priorities of disarming the general public. And because as bad as it is now with guns, tyranny will result in far more deaths, maybe 1,000,000 times more.


----------



## Sawney Beane

Yeswecan said:


> It goes beyond that. Disarming a law abiding citizen allows the criminal element to do as they please without recourse. In short, there is no way the criminal element will give up their guns and become law abiding citizens because the federal government created a law to have guns taken off the streets.


So basically yes, then? The dead kids ARE a price worth paying, it's terrible for the individual families involved, but acceptable across the population?


----------



## username77

Yeswecan said:


> From my understanding those who perpetrated the killings are on or where on prescription medications. The drugging of America


Wouldn't it make more sense that the mental illness that is being treated with the drugs is the root cause, rather than the drug itself? It's like saying someone died from the Capoten they were taking instead of the heart disease it was attempting to treat.


----------



## EllisRedding

Sawney Beane said:


> So basically yes, then? The dead kids ARE a price worth paying, it's terrible for the individual families involved, but acceptable across the population?


Would your solution be to ban all guns to the public?


----------



## Yeswecan

Sawney Beane said:


> So basically yes, then? The dead kids ARE a price worth paying, it's terrible for the individual families involved, but acceptable across the population?


The price worth paying? Absolutely not. Ultimately the level of guns in the country makes talking about the threat of federal government and right to bear arms useless. It goes beyond that talk. The issue arises when law abiding citizens abide by the law and turn in their guns(if a law is passed). The criminal element AND those that like to shoot children in schools will not turn in their guns. 

The forefathers never imagined, when writing the right to bear arms, would lead to school shootings.


----------



## sokillme

Sawney Beane said:


> I normally stay out of these discussions, but I wonder if somebody can enlighten me.
> 
> From over here, there seems to be a view in America that when compared to the threat of the federal government rocking up to oppress the American people, that the deaths of a few dozen children per year is an acceptable loss. That the price of freedom isn't eternal vigilance, but eternal vigilance and some schoolkids. Nobody comes out and says so in so many words, but that seems to be the bottom line.
> 
> Is this actually the way this is considered?


We are a country that threw out our king. That is part of our mythos. Guns were and always will be a big part of our culture. At least half of the country likes that and wants it to be that way. It's celebrated in our art, and the masses, even the ones who claim to want the change watch it with great enthusiasm. That is not going to change any time soon. Just look at one of America's most unique myths, that would be the western. What is the culmination of that myth, two men shooting at each other in the street. 

What may fix it is dealing with the mental health aspects of the problem. We could probably come to some kind of consensus there. I personally believe that there is a terrible failure of emotional education. Meaning teaching both boys and girls how to be emotionally intelligent, and because of that in this case some young men fail to make emotional connections with other people. The end point of this is usually some sort of violence and death, suicide mostly but also gang violence and occasionally these kind of mass killings.

That is not going to be fixed by those articles that's for sure. There are 3 guns to every one person in the country.

My solution is find these kids who don't have friends, generally bullied when they are in like 3rd grade and sent them to a school with other kids like them. Teach them social norms and how to communicate. Give them healthy outlets for their aggression like martial arts but under supervised care. But most importantly teach them how to make emotional connections so they can have a long term investment in something. Friendship.


----------



## samyeagar

Yeswecan said:


> The price worth paying? Absolutely not. Ultimately the level of guns in the country makes talking about the threat of federal government and right to bear arms useless. It goes beyond that talk. The issue arises when law abiding citizens abide by the law and turn in their guns(if a law is passed). The criminal element AND those that like to shoot children in schools will not turn in their guns.
> 
> The forefathers never imagined, when writing the right to bear arms, would lead to school shootings.


When they wrote that, maybe a third of the population even went to school, every male over the age of 12 was in a volunteer state, county, or local militia, and each shot had to be hand loaded.


----------



## Yeswecan

username77 said:


> Wouldn't it make more sense that the mental illness that is being treated with the drugs is the root cause, rather than the drug itself? It's like saying someone died from the Capoten they were taking instead of the heart disease it was attempting to treat.


 The mental illness is the issue. From my understanding all involved with these shootings have at one time been under a doctors care. Is it possible the drugs in some way assisted in making decisions like shooting kids at a school? I would think they could. I'm not an expert on that. But you know, some drug made an entire village under the leadership of Jim Jones drink Kool Aid loaded with poison. The mind is capable of anything.


----------



## Sawney Beane

EllisRedding said:


> Would your solution be to ban all guns to the public?


Not necessarily. That's a related, but separate question. What I'm trying to weigh up is that if the genuine belief is that the deaths of kids or whomever in these massacres is a reasonable price for the possession of firearms to preserve liberty in the US, then politicians or whomever should have the courage to say so in so many words.


----------



## Thor

Sawney Beane said:


> I normally stay out of these discussions, but I wonder if somebody can enlighten me.
> 
> From over here, there seems to be a view in America that when compared to the threat of the federal government rocking up to oppress the American people, that the deaths of a few dozen children per year is an acceptable loss. That the price of freedom isn't eternal vigilance, but eternal vigilance and some schoolkids. Nobody comes out and says so in so many words, but that seems to be the bottom line.
> 
> Is this actually the way this is considered?


Only if you listen to the left wing media. It couldn't be further from the truth for conservatives, libertarians, NRA or it's members.

I am going to stay out of the statistics war on gun control this time. Just suffice it to say the common stuff thrown around in the media world wide is just not accurate at all. The USA isn't near the top for mass shootings or mass killings, nor are we for murder rates or violent crime rates. If you believe we are, you have been intentionally lied to with false statistics or statistics presented in a deceptive way.


----------



## sokillme

samyeagar said:


> When they wrote that, maybe a third of the population even went to school, every male over the age of 12 was in a volunteer state, county, or local militia, and each shot had to be hand loaded.


Why does this matter though? You could say that about a lot of things. The only reason why there is no gun control is because the majority of people in this country want it so, or at least don't care enough to make it so.


----------



## Thor

Yeswecan said:


> Time to ban the AR.


Describe such a law in as much detail as you can.


----------



## Yeswecan

samyeagar said:


> When they wrote that, maybe a third of the population even went to school, every male over the age of 12 was in a volunteer state, county, or local militia, and each shot had to be hand loaded.


School shooting are not something that is new. The right to bear arms was not only for federal government but protection of home. So,yes, living back then having a firearm handy was probably a good thing. 




> 1700s
> The earliest known United States shooting to happen on school property was the Pontiac's Rebellion school massacre on July 26, 1764, where four Lenape American Indian entered the schoolhouse near present-day Greencastle, Pennsylvania, shot and killed schoolmaster Enoch Brown, and killed nine or ten children (reports vary). Only two children survived.


----------



## Yeswecan

Thor said:


> Describe such a law in as much detail as you can.


Can't bro. And here we are. Going roundy round. Politicians doing their best to keep that vote.


----------



## EllisRedding

Sawney Beane said:


> Not necessarily. That's a related, but separate question. What I'm trying to weigh up is that if the genuine belief is that the deaths of kids or whomever in these massacres is a reasonable price for the possession of firearms to preserve liberty in the US, then politicians or whomever should have the courage to say so in so many words.


My concern is the focus seems to be solely on guns. Guns were the tool used, correct. There are so many other issues though that need to be addressed (mental health, over medication, glamorization of violence, family structure, etc...). These are all pieces to a puzzle that we need to solve in order to figure out what the heck is going on.


----------



## username77

I own a few hunting guns but there's no reason that an 18 year old kid, or anyone outside the military or law enforcement needs access to semi-auto handguns or assault rifles. I don't think banning them is a panacea, banning semi-auto assault rifles was already done by Clinton and the impact was negligible. But it is a start, and I think the access to cool looking guns + video games detailing realistic mass murder with said guns + social isolation/mental illness + the media making these murderers rock stars is what creates these mass shootings.

Our military has tanks, nukes, warships, grenades, a million soldiers, etc... fat, out of shape ********, and mentally ill kids aren't going to lead the revolution against a "tyrannical government". We don't allow citizens to buy tanks, grenade launchers, C4 explosives, mortars, etc... Why is an semi-auto assault rifle any different?


----------



## Thor

Sawney Beane said:


> Not necessarily. That's a related, but separate question. What I'm trying to weigh up is that if the genuine belief is that the deaths of kids or whomever in these massacres is a reasonable price for the possession of firearms to preserve liberty in the US, then politicians or whomever should have the courage to say so in so many words.


Ok, one quasi-numerical post. If you are going to weigh how many are killed, you'd better count how many are saved. How many legitimate self defense uses vs how many deaths per year. Then you need to look at how many crimes are successfully deterred and never happen because of lawful gun ownership.

You also need to consider how these things change if guns or some subgroup of guns is banned. What about the substitution effect, where if one tool is not available then another will be used, thereby not resulting in an actual reduction in deaths or violence? How many additional victims of violence would result from the new restriction?

If you go down this road the results are overwhelmingly in favor of the least restrictions possible on lawful gun ownership.


----------



## Notself

Sawney Beane said:


> I normally stay out of these discussions, but I wonder if somebody can enlighten me.
> 
> From over here, there seems to be a view in America that when compared to the threat of the federal government rocking up to oppress the American people, that the deaths of a few dozen children per year is an acceptable loss. That the price of freedom isn't eternal vigilance, but eternal vigilance and some schoolkids. Nobody comes out and says so in so many words, but that seems to be the bottom line.
> 
> Is this actually the way this is considered?


Yes, by about half the country. The other half doesn't believe that the sacrifice of schoolkids is worth easily obtainable AR-15s, but that half has no money, no power, and no politicians on their side.


----------



## Notself

Thor said:


> Describe such a law in as much detail as you can.


Jesus Christ. We banned semiautomatics from 1994 to 2004, and had no major shootings in that time. After the ban expired, we got shootings again. It's not really that difficult.


----------



## Thor

Yeswecan said:


> Can't bro. And here we are. Going roundy round. Politicians doing their best to keep that vote.


Well that's the thing. It is easy to say "Ban the AR!", or whatever other new restriction feels good in the moment. But once it comes time to craft some sentences with details it becomes a completely different animal. Especially in the case of the AR because it really is just a cosmetic definition. There are many different brands and models of semi-automatic rifle which function exactly like the AR-15 but don't have the evil black rifle cosmetics. There are many such rifles which have much more powerful ammunition. Even if you could craft a law, somebody will immediately design a new product which gets around the restriction.


----------



## Sawney Beane

Thor said:


> Only if you listen to the left wing media. It couldn't be further from the truth for conservatives, libertarians, NRA or it's members.
> 
> I am going to stay out of the statistics war on gun control this time. Just suffice it to say the common stuff thrown around in the media world wide is just not accurate at all. The USA isn't near the top for mass shootings or mass killings, nor are we for murder rates or violent crime rates. If you believe we are, you have been intentionally lied to with false statistics or statistics presented in a deceptive way.


Quite right. I'm not an American, I've visited once, but basically what I know is based on books, news and the like, and so has (necessarily) been filtered through the authors' beliefs, perceptions etc.

Over here we see your school shootings reported on the news, hear that you keep arms so your government can't oppress you, and see the shootings keep on happening. To me it didn't seem like a large leap of logic that the price of freedom was having school/nightclub/whatever shootings and that price was deemed horrible but tolerable. Kind of like back in the day that training accidents (sometimes fatal) where the price of preparedness/capability when I was a soldier. The difference being that the Army was honest and up-front about saying so. Fatalities in training were rare, tragic and regrettable but less tragic than fighting a war unprepared.


----------



## Notself

Thor said:


> The USA isn't near the top for mass shootings or mass killings.... If you believe we are, you have been intentionally lied to with false statistics or statistics presented in a deceptive way.


Wow. That's ... completely wrong. 

https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/03/americas/us-gun-statistics/index.html

But that's fake news, right?


----------



## Thor

Notself said:


> Jesus Christ. We banned semiautomatics from 1994 to 2004, and had no major shootings in that time. After the ban expired, we got shootings again. It's not really that difficult.


The law did not ban semi-automatics. There is no relationship between school shootings and the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994.

Jesus Christ indeed. The level of misinformation and false statistics perpetrated by the gun ban crowd is impressive, and I fear Vladimir Lenin was correct, "A lie told often enough becomes the truth".


----------



## Sawney Beane

Thor said:


> Ok, one quasi-numerical post. If you are going to weigh how many are killed, you'd better count how many are saved. How many legitimate self defense uses vs how many deaths per year. Then you need to look at how many crimes are successfully deterred and never happen because of lawful gun ownership.
> 
> You also need to consider how these things change if guns or some subgroup of guns is banned. What about the substitution effect, where if one tool is not available then another will be used, thereby not resulting in an actual reduction in deaths or violence? How many additional victims of violence would result from the new restriction?
> 
> If you go down this road the results are overwhelmingly in favor of the least restrictions possible on lawful gun ownership.


Regarding the sheer numbers, **** knows. However, having trained with rifles/machine guns etc, I know that you can kill more people faster and from further away with an automatic rifle than with a knife close up.


----------



## Yeswecan

Thor said:


> Well that's the thing. It is easy to say "Ban the AR!", or whatever other new restriction feels good in the moment. But once it comes time to craft some sentences with details it becomes a completely different animal. Especially in the case of the AR because it really is just a cosmetic definition. There are many different brands and models of semi-automatic rifle which function exactly like the AR-15 but don't have the evil black rifle cosmetics. There are many such rifles which have much more powerful ammunition. Even if you could craft a law, somebody will immediately design a new product which gets around the restriction.


Exactly. The politicians make a good show. There is nothing that can be done on the scale of eliminating guns. Think about it, if anyone really wanted a gun...they can get one.


----------



## arbitrator

*At the time of the writing of the Second Amendment, there were no automatic weapons or AR-15 assault rifles. Hell, there was not even an NRA!

But once the NRA tells folks that AR-15's and rocket launchers are acceptable for deer hunting, then it will fund and politically contribute to the teeth those Congressman who will show it one scintilla of allegiance and have an outstretched palm to accept its money!

And certainly not in the name of protecting lives, not in keeping them out of schools or other public gathering places, not in keeping firearms away from the mentallly unstable or the criminal element by the institution of federal or state mandated background checks, but solely in their unfettered right to sell and regulate the sale of reasonable or unreasonable firearms!

The NRA's entire mantra is that the few lives killed doesn't really matter, all in the name of placing guns into anyone's hands who wants to have one!

The chant of those kids is simply resonating:

"Hey, hey, NRA ~ how many politicians have you bought off today?"

*


----------



## Sawney Beane

EllisRedding said:


> My concern is the focus seems to be solely on guns. Guns were the tool used, correct. There are so many other issues though that need to be addressed (mental health, over medication, glamorization of violence, family structure, etc...). These are all pieces to a puzzle that we need to solve in order to figure out what the heck is going on.


Yes, the why is the the thing I guess. However, although a nutter armed with a table leg or even a knife can kill people, sometimes a lot of people, that same nutter armed with a 5.56mm rifle that can shoot through doors/studwork walls etc can kill a lot more people a lot more efficiently.


----------



## Notself

Thor said:


> The law did not ban semi-automatics. There is no relationship between school shootings and the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994.
> 
> Jesus Christ indeed. The level of misinformation and false statistics perpetrated by the gun ban crowd is impressive, and I fear Vladimir Lenin was correct, "A lie told often enough becomes the truth".


You're completely wrong, but this attitude is why we will always have kids being shot to death in the USA. I feel sad that you think it's perfectly OK that kids die, as long as you get to keep your AR. I hope no one you care about is ever shot. I suspect it wouldn't make any difference to you if they were, though.

I have nothing else to say about this, since your type has all the power and politicians in their pockets.


----------



## Thor

Notself said:


> Wow. That's ... completely wrong.
> 
> https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/03/americas/us-gun-statistics/index.html
> 
> But that's fake news, right?


Yup. Fake News. 

They fail to look at all causes and tools. Instead they cherry pick only gun related homicides. Since the USA has a high level of gun ownership, the gun becomes the tool of choice here. In other countries where gun ownership is low, a different tool is chosen. It appears they have cherry picked which nations they include in their charts. It could also be that they lump suicides into the homicide numbers which further distorts the numbers.

I sometimes wonder if people who are emotionally committed to gun bans and very tight restrictions ever reach the point of realizing they're being intentionally lied to and manipulated by the media and some very wealthy funding sources. And I wonder if such people ever reach the point of being royally pissed off at those media and advocacy groups for using them as "useful idiots" (not my term if you aren't familiar with the origin of it).

I started 25 years ago strongly in the camp of common sense gun control. Since then I've read a multitude of studies, books, and listened to various discussions with experts. The truth is out there but you won't find it in the mainstream media. They are lying to you.


----------



## Thor

Notself said:


> You're completely wrong, but this attitude is why we will always have kids being shot to death in the USA. I feel sad that you think it's perfectly OK that kids die, as long as you get to keep your AR. I hope no one you care about is ever shot. I suspect it wouldn't make any difference to you if they were, though.
> 
> I have nothing else to say about this, since your type has all the power and politicians in their pockets.


You are so far wrong it leaves me sad for you.


----------



## username77

Notself said:


> Wow. That's ... completely wrong.
> 
> https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/03/americas/us-gun-statistics/index.html
> 
> But that's fake news, right?


Not really fake news, but how statistics can be used to bolster any argument. Central and South America are by far the deadliest countries in the world when it comes to gun violence. And Europe as a whole has more mass shootings and deadlier. Norway, Serbia, France, Macedonia, Albania, Slovakia, Switzerland, Finland, Belgium, and the Czech Republic all have a higher death rate per 1,000,000 citizens (for mass shootings), than the United States between 2009 - 2015.

Not that our mass shooting situation is good, it's horrible, but other countries are just as bad or worse.


----------



## MJJEAN

Sawney Beane said:


> Not necessarily. That's a related, but separate question. What I'm trying to weigh up is that if the genuine belief is that the deaths of kids or whomever in these massacres is a reasonable price for the possession of firearms to preserve liberty in the US, then politicians or whomever should have the courage to say so in so many words.


Plain speaking isn't exactly a politicians strong suit. Besides, you don't have to state something that everyone already knows.

Also, frankly, there is literally nothing the government could do even if it were so inclined. Why alienate voters in a fruitless attempt? There are something like 350 *million* firearms in civilian hands in this country. Probably more as many don't register their firearms. We have land borders to our north and south that are not secure. We are only able to inspect a small percentage of the goods shipped here in shipping containers. Even if the federal government repealed or modified the 2nd Amendment, there would be no way to keep guns out of the hands of those who want them for evil purposes. In fact, making certain guns illegal would just create a booming black market.


----------



## Sawney Beane

MJJEAN said:


> Plain speaking isn't exactly a politicians strong suit. Besides, you don't have to state something that everyone already knows.


I would say that actually you do, or at least you ought to. Especially something like this, because otherwise things that are "obvious" are soon anything but obvious.


----------



## Thor

Sawney Beane said:


> Fatalities in training were rare, tragic and regrettable but less tragic than fighting a war unprepared.


And school shootings are in fact rare statistically. I understand it is 100% if it is you or your child killed, but looking at the big picture school shootings are a rare occurrence, are a tiny fraction of all murders, and are an even tinier fraction of all serious violent crime.

If you look at mass public murders, not restricted to guns, on a per capita basis the USA is not near the top of the list.

As to tragic losses being acceptable, as I posted earlier one has to look at the mathematical tradeoff if you are going to play the game that X number of lives lost is justification for instituting a new law. We might invent an effective new law for the rare event but then have large negative side effects elsewhere. To your analogy, it is better to win the war and save the population, yet acknowledge there is a cost to do so. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't seek to reduce the costs as much as possible.

Despite how the leftist media portrays it, gun owners and the NRA are all outraged by these shootings and want to institute meaningful changes which will prevent future events. But the media won't report it, or they do so inaccurately with mocking.

One reason I challenge people to describe the law they'd like to implement is because usually that law already exists or because no law can be described which would actually accomplish what they say they want. It is easy to say "Ban the AR", but either it is a meaningless law because everybody just switches to a different firearm, or it must become so very much more of a sweeping gun prohibition. Any new law must have an enforcement process, which if we are being honest about trying to stop violence rather than simply trying to ban guns, means the law has to be enforceable.


----------



## karole

When I was in school (many moons ago in the 70s/80s), the boys often had guns in their cars/trucks in the school parking lot. Almost all boys carried a pocket knife in their pocket at school. Never once did we have a school shooting or someone murdered at school. Why are the kids now so angry? They seem to be mad at the world.


----------



## FrenchFry

Thor said:


> Back in the 1930's we had John Wayne and Clark Gable. They were masculine men and they portrayed masculine characters everybody wanted to emulate. Toxically masculine men by today's definition. In the 1920's we had Charles Lindbergh. In the 1940's we had The Greatest Generation win WWII.
> 
> And no mass school shootings.
> 
> Today we have Generation Snow Flake.
> 
> I'm trying to figure out where masculinity is the problem here. Are the Snowflakes exhibiting more masculinity than was in place 50+ years ago?


I'm going to link this and then copy paste the text.

Tanai Benard





> My 5th grader and I were conversing on the way to work/school this morning. As an educator, I wanted to be sure he and his classmates were taking the school safety drills seriously and not using it as a time to socialize and goof off.
> 
> Me: Have you guys praticed a lockdown drill in class yet?
> 
> Dez: Are you talking about an active shooter drill?
> 
> Me: Yes
> 
> Dez: Yes, we practiced it
> 
> Me: So tell me what you are suppose to do.
> 
> Dez: The teacher is suppose to shut and lock the door, put the black paper over the window on the door.
> Then myself and three other boys are suppose to push the table against the door.
> 
> After that all the class is going to stand behind us on the back wall.
> 
> Me: The class is suppose to stand behind who?
> 
> Dez: Me and the other 3 boys. We stand at the front and they get behind us.
> 
> *I internally went from 0 to 100 real quick. My child is one of only 2 black children in a class of 23. Being transparent, I immediately went to the "why is my black son being put on the front line?" (Just being real) So I asked before I verbally stated my thoughts*
> 
> Me: Why did you get picked to stand in front of everyone else if a shooter came in your school?
> 
> Dez: I didn't get picked. I volunteered to push the table and protect my friends
> 
> Me: ��*immediate nausea * Dez why would you volunteer to do that?
> 
> Dez: If it came down to it I would rather be the one that died protecting my friends then have an entire class die and I be the only one that lived
> 
> Father God, it took everything out of me not to breakdown. I still have a lump in my throat. 10 damn years old and this has to be our babies thought process in America.


My kid is 7. His drills are getting in a corner and if someone comes in to run around being as obnoxious as possible in hopes that some of the other kids get away.

We've failed our kids and we'd basically rather sit here and throw out buzzwords, blame millennials and call each other names. 

I don't even care about the gun argument. I am just so sad that basically my kid knows that he is chum for this world already.


----------



## karole

FrenchFry said:


> I'm going to link this and then copy paste the text.
> 
> Tanai Benard
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My kid is 7. His drills are getting in a corner and if someone comes in to run around being as obnoxious as possible in hopes that some of the other kids get away.
> 
> We've failed our kids and we'd basically rather sit here and throw out buzzwords, blame millennials and call each other names.
> 
> I don't even care about the gun argument. I am just so sad that basically my kid knows that he is chum for this world already.


Ugh!


----------



## MJJEAN

Thor said:


> Even if you could craft a law, somebody will immediately design a new product which gets around the restriction.


Such as the Mossberg Shockwave, also known as the "Mossberg Loophole"? We're _already_ designing products to get around restrictions. I haven't looked in a bit, but I hear Remington has it's own version now, too. 

https://www.mossberg.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Shockwave-Letter-from-ATF-3-2-17.pdf


----------



## Thor

MJJEAN said:


> Such as the Mossberg Shockwave, also known as the "Mossberg Loophole"? We're _already_ designing products to get around restrictions. I haven't looked in a bit, but I hear Remington has it's own version now, too.
> 
> https://www.mossberg.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Shockwave-Letter-from-ATF-3-2-17.pdf


The whole "bullet button" thing in California, and the pistol grip on a rifle too. Creative inventors have come up with good functional workarounds to those restrictions.

And then there's the arm brace on a handgun. The bumpstock, too, though that is likely to get banned via federal law.


----------



## Yeswecan

karole said:


> When I was in school (many moons ago in the 70s/80s), the boys often had guns in their cars/trucks in the school parking lot. Almost all boys carried a pocket knife in their pocket at school. Never once did we have a school shooting or someone murdered at school. Why are the kids now so angry? They seem to be mad at the world.


There are a lot of factors from then to now contributing IMO. Parenting, handing attention disorders differently, desensitizing via TV programs depicting murder(Criminal Minds come to mind). Things of this nature.


----------



## arbitrator

MJJEAN said:


> Such as the Mossberg Shockwave, also known as the "Mossberg Loophole"? We're _already_ designing products to get around restrictions. I haven't looked in a bit, but I hear Remington has it's own version now, too.
> 
> https://www.mossberg.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Shockwave-Letter-from-ATF-3-2-17.pdf


*Just new models of firearms for some mentally deficient idiot to easily get so they can proficiently kill even more innocent children and teachers in some school with!*


----------



## Sawney Beane

Yeswecan said:


> There are a lot of factors from then to now contributing IMO. Parenting, handing attention disorders differently, desensitizing via TV programs depicting murder(Criminal Minds come to mind). Things of this nature.


Not wanting to drag this off track, but when you say "handing attention disorders differently" I don't remember people having "attention disorders" when I was at school in the 70's/80's. There were "morons", "thickos" and the "awkward squad", all of whom were kept in line with beatings, but that was it really.


----------



## samyeagar

karole said:


> When I was in school (many moons ago in the 70s/80s), the boys often had guns in their cars/trucks in the school parking lot. Almost all boys carried a pocket knife in their pocket at school. Never once did we have a school shooting or someone murdered at school. *Why are the kids now so angry? They seem to be mad at the world*.


Blaming it on men and toxic masculinity, which is the premise of this post as demonstrated in the articles at the beginning, is not really going to help matters.

I'll tell ya, as a card carrying liberal who has voted democratic in every election since I was 18, primaries included, I'm getting pretty sick of being blamed for things. It gets tough after a while telling myself that people are generalizing, not talking about me specifically, greater good, and all that, especially when some of these far left people whom have been embraced by the democratic party are actually meaning each and every man, me included. I can definitely understand the backlash feelings many people have been having that allowed Trump to end up in the White House.


----------



## Yeswecan

Sawney Beane said:


> Not wanting to drag this off track, but when you say "handing attention disorders differently" I don't remember people having "attention disorders" when I was at school in the 70's/80's. There were "morons", "thickos" and the "awkward squad", all of whom were kept in line with beatings, but that was it really.


There was no beatings that I recall. I recall special education classes for these kids. For other kids who just did not get what school was about were offered COP or Career Opportunity Program. These kids did take the three R classes and then a shop class. The afternoon was spent at a job. I do not recall medication handed out like candy. Don't get me wrong. Kids still did some really stupid crap to others. However, the likelihood of a gun being involved was not great at all.


----------



## Rowan

karole said:


> When I was in school (many moons ago in the 70s/80s), the boys often had guns in their cars/trucks in the school parking lot. Almost all boys carried a pocket knife in their pocket at school. Never once did we have a school shooting or someone murdered at school. Why are the kids now so angry? They seem to be mad at the world.





Yeswecan said:


> There are a lot of factors from then to now contributing IMO. Parenting, handing attention disorders differently, desensitizing via TV programs depicting murder(Criminal Minds come to mind). Things of this nature.


This.

Before Columbine, a fair number of school kids on any rural public school campus had at least one firearm in their vehicle. Half or more of the vehicles in the student parking lot at my high school (in the early 90's) had some combination of rifle, shotgun, handgun, and likely a few boxes of ammunition, in them. Many of the teachers kept guns in their vehicles. It wasn't entirely uncommon for boys to bring their hunting rifles to school on the bus and leave them with the front office for the school day so they could go hunting or shooting after school. If guns were the only problem then the numbers of school shootings should have been sky high back when plenty of 15-18 year olds were armed on the regular. And, when public schools became zero-tolerance gun-free zones, school shootings should have declined dramatically. But that's not at all what happened. 

Which makes me wonder if perhaps what we have is less of a gun problem and more of a people problem.


----------



## samyeagar

Rowan said:


> This.
> 
> Before Columbine, a fair number of school kids on any rural public school campus had at least one firearm in their vehicle. Half or more of the vehicles in the student parking lot at my high school (in the early 90's) had some combination of rifle, shotgun, handgun, and likely a few boxes of ammunition in them. Many of the teachers kept guns in their vehicles. It wasn't entirely uncommon for boys to bring their hunting rifles to school on the bus and leave them with the front office for the school day so they could go hunting or shooting after school. If guns were the only problem then the numbers of school shootings should have been sky high back when plenty of 15-18 year olds were armed on regular. And, when public schools became zero-tolerance gun-free zones, school shootings should have declined dramatically. But that's not at all what happened.
> 
> Which makes me wonder if perhaps what we have is less of a gun problem and *more of a people problem*.


Just look up those articles in the OP...it's more specifically a problem with all sane white men.


----------



## FrenchFry

samyeagar said:


> Blaming it on men and toxic masculinity, which is the premise of this post as demonstrated in the articles at the beginning, is not really going to help matters.
> 
> I'll tell ya, as a card carrying liberal who has voted democratic in every election since I was 18, primaries included, I'm getting pretty sick of being blamed for things. It gets tough after a while telling myself that people are generalizing, not talking about me specifically, greater good, and all that, especially when some of these far left people whom have been embraced by the democratic party are actually meaning each and every man, me included. I can definitely understand the backlash feelings many people have been having that allowed Trump to end up in the White House.


I have empathy for you, it sucks being lumped into one group, treated as a monolith and blamed for all ills for anyone who looks like you.

Here is what I've been told, maybe it will help you:

I'm not talking about you, you are one of the good ones.


----------



## samyeagar

FrenchFry said:


> I have empathy for you, it sucks being lumped into one group, treated as a monolith and blamed for all ills for anyone who looks like you.
> 
> Here is what I've been told, maybe it will help you:
> 
> I'm not talking about you, you are one of the good ones.


I do appreciate what you are saying, and as it applies to interpersonal relationships, that's fine, but when it starts to encroach on public policy territory...as you know all too well French Fry...

Again, I say this as a liberal democrat, and for example, have always stood against lumping all Muslims, and followers of the Islamic faith into the group called terrorists that some on the far right liked to publicly do. I always spoke out against that and defended the individual. Well, the far left has now openly engaged in the exact same behaviour they have decried the far right for for so long. I am not OK with anyone doing it, and will not support anyone who engages in it, even if there is some greater good being claimed.


----------



## Sawney Beane

Rowan said:


> This.
> 
> Before Columbine, a fair number of school kids on any rural public school campus had at least one firearm in their vehicle.
> 
> Which makes me wonder if perhaps what we have is less of a gun problem and more of a people problem.


Even in the 80's at school in London carrying a knife in school, even a craft knife because you wanted to bring your own tools to woodwork, was an instant caning job, followed by suspension.

I would say murder is pretty much always a people problem. But it's easier to murder people with a gun than a knife or your bare hands, especially if you want to murder a lot of people in a short time.


----------



## Rowan

samyeagar said:


> Just look up those articles in the OP...it's more specifically a problem with all sane white men.


Hmm...it's actually usually blamed on straight, white, men. Bonus points for being from "flyover country" or the South. It's ridiculous! 

I think blaming "toxic masculinity" for tragedies in our society is truly sad. There is nothing inherently toxic about men or masculine behavior. But I do think we, as a societal whole, seem to have serious problems with increasing levels of narcissism, lack of healthy coping skills, poor boundaries, lack of discipline, an overarching entitlement mentality and a desperate lack of empathy. As the mother of a son, I can clearly see that he _needs_ discipline, boundaries, coping skills, emotional awareness, and for me to help him learn empathy and humility and how to handle disappointment in constructive ways. Girls need all of that too, but I honestly think boys suffer from the lack of it a little more. Learning self-control while maintaining a healthy sense of self-esteem is hard. Somewhere along the way, I think society as a whole has shifted away from helping our young men do that well, in favor of simply catering to everyone's every emotion. Personal responsibility should still be a thing, and far too often I think it's just not.


----------



## Sawney Beane

Rowan said:


> Hmm...it's actually usually blamed on straight, white, men. Bonus points for being from "flyover country" or the South. It's ridiculous!
> 
> I think blaming "toxic masculinity" for tragedies in our society is truly sad. There is nothing inherently toxic about men or masculine behavior. But I do think we, as a societal whole, seem to have serious problems with increasing levels of narcissism, lack of healthy coping skills, poor boundaries, lack of discipline, an overarching entitlement mentality and a desperate lack of empathy. As the mother of a son, I can clearly see that he _needs_ discipline, boundaries, coping skills, emotional awareness, and for me to help him learn empathy and humility and how to handle disappointment in constructive ways. Girls need all of that too, but I honestly think boys suffer from the lack of it a little more. Learning self-control while maintaining a healthy sense of self-esteem is hard. Somewhere along the way, I think society as a whole has shifted away from helping our young men do that well, in favor of simply catering to everyone's every emotion. Personal responsibility should still be a thing, and far too often I think it's just not.


Back when I was growing up, boundaries were simple - do as you're told or get the snot knocked out of you, and nobody was aware of such things as emotions. Mind you we had institutional racism and sexism as well...

Nobody had "coping skills": you sank or swam, had what you were given and liked it. Was this really better?


----------



## samyeagar

Rowan said:


> Hmm...it's actually usually blamed on straight, white, men. Bonus points for being from "flyover country" or the South. It's ridiculous!
> 
> I think blaming "toxic masculinity" for tragedies in our society is truly sad. There is nothing inherently toxic about men or masculine behavior. But I do think we, as a societal whole, seem to have serious problems with increasing levels of narcissism, lack of healthy coping skills, poor boundaries, lack of discipline, an overarching entitlement mentality and a desperate lack of empathy. As the mother of a son, I can clearly see that he _needs_ discipline, boundaries, coping skills, emotional awareness, and for me to help him learn empathy and humility and how to handle disappointment in constructive ways. Girls need all of that too, but I honestly think boys suffer from the lack of it a little more. Learning self-control while maintaining a healthy sense of self-esteem is hard. Somewhere along the way, I think society as a whole has shifted away from helping our young men do that well, in favor of simply catering to everyone's every emotion. Personal responsibility should still be a thing, and far too often I think it's just not.


And when you get away from left leaning activist Meccas like California and the west coast, and New York into more centerist blue collar swing states, doubling down on identity politics is not going to win national elections, or being a more even tenor to our nations discourse.

Again as I have said, I am a dyed in the wool plain old ordinary nothing special democrat, and if I am feeling the way I am about my party, and the far left that they are actively embracing, that does not bode well.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

samyeagar said:


> Again as I have said, I am a dyed in the wool plain old ordinary nothing special democrat, and if I am feeling the way I am about my party, and the far left that they are actively embracing, that does not bode well.


If it's any consolation, dyed in the wool plain old ordinary nothing special Republicans have equally distasteful feelings about their party as well.

Actually, I know its no consolation, as I'm sure we would both like to minimize the impact of the extreme elements of our parties.


----------



## farsidejunky

Sawney Beane said:


> So basically yes, then? The dead kids ARE a price worth paying, it's terrible for the individual families involved, but acceptable across the population?


The premise of your question makes it rather loaded.

Are these incidents acceptable?

No. Both sides can agree on such.

How to solve the problem? Vehement disagreement on both sides will never allow a viable solution to occur. 

There has been too much bad faith in action on both sides to allow for concessions.


----------



## farsidejunky

arbitrator said:


> *At the time of the writing of the Second Amendment, there were no automatic weapons or AR-15 assault rifles. Hell, there was not even an NRA!
> 
> But once the NRA tells folks that AR-15's and rocket launchers are acceptable for deer hunting, then it will fund and politically contribute to the teeth those Congressman who will show it one scintilla of allegiance and have an outstretched palm to accept its money!
> 
> And certainly not in the name of protecting lives, not in keeping them out of schools or other public gathering places, not in keeping firearms away from the mentallly unstable or the criminal element by the institution of federal or state mandated background checks, but solely in their unfettered right to sell and regulate the sale of reasonable or unreasonable firearms!
> 
> The NRA's entire mantra is that the few lives killed doesn't really matter, all in the name of placing guns into anyone's hands who wants to have one!
> 
> The chant of those kids is simply resonating:
> 
> "Hey, hey, NRA ~ how many politicians have you bought off today?"
> 
> *


It always bothers me when people paint political lobbying groups as evil...unless they are supporting a cause that same person believes in.

Arb, you could say the same thing about AARP...or any lobbying group. Typically, the more effective they are, the more hated they are.

That said, I am willing to have an honest conversation about eliminating or restricting lobbying groups. But let's avoid partisan statements such as this, lest you intend to point out your own hypocrisy as well.


----------



## Sawney Beane

farsidejunky said:


> The premise of your question makes it rather loaded.
> 
> Are these incidents acceptable?
> 
> No. Both sides can agree on such.
> 
> How to solve the problem? Vehement disagreement on both sides will never allow a viable solution to occur.
> 
> There has been too much bad faith in action on both sides to allow for concessions.


I guess it can't NOT be loaded - on one side you have the victims of shootings, on the other the belief that the only thing standing between you and the Gulag is your right to keep arms. It isn't exactly a shall I have cheese or ham in a sandwich question.


----------



## FrenchFry

samyeagar said:


> And when you get away from left leaning activist Meccas like California and the west coast, and New York into more centerist blue collar swing states, doubling down on identity politics is not going to win national elections, or being a more even tenor to our nations discourse.
> 
> Again as I have said, I am a dyed in the wool plain old ordinary nothing special democrat, and if I am feeling the way I am about my party, and the far left that they are actively embracing, that does not bode well.


Nope. However, at this point and with these attitudes it's a Not My Problem.


----------



## farsidejunky

Sawney Beane said:


> I guess it can't NOT be loaded - on one side you have the victims of shootings, on the other the belief that the only thing standing between you and the Gulag is your right to keep arms. It isn't exactly a shall I have cheese or ham in a sandwich question.


The former was painted in a perfectly rational light...

The latter was painted in a manner that invalidates and belittles the position.

This is a perfect example of the bad faith I just referenced.


----------



## EllisRedding

Not sure if this is widespread or not, but there seems to be a call for teachers/students to do a 17 minute walk out during school in the coming months (premise being Congress will hear them and act on gun legislation). This has been the hot topic in the community these past two days lol


----------



## Pantone429c

What do you mean that there is NO gun control? How many laws do you want for god sake. There are ooodles of gun laws on the books. 
The problem is that a person that should not have a gun under a particular law has one anyway. Cocaine is illegal everywhere.....how are those laws working out?

As far as banning the AR....it is a SEMI-automatic not a military version. Lots of Semi Automatics used for hunting. The FBI dropped the ball in the Fla case. I have not heard much discussion about that

Also not heard why the schools didn’t warn the police......lots of people to blame here that could of made a difference...... in stead we want to blame an inanimate tool that for many people is used to put food on the table


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Pantone429c

So you are out of shape 40 something a pretty wife 5 beautiful daughters. You live 50miles from the nearest town and 2 mile from your nearest neighbor. And trouble comes a knocking at 2 AM......let that sink in.....do you wish that at the very least you had a shotgun.........or would you be okay with a baseball bat?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## FrenchFry

So, going back the OP

What do you want "us" to do?

Like this article is like so many think pieces that just moan for days gone by. 

Do you want to go back to the past? Me, personally--I'm not going to allow that to happen for many reasons. Like the shirt says-- I am my ancestor's wildest dreams. 

There is no solution in that article. There is nothing to say. I will raise my son as I see fit and I bet you, the author and anyone on this website will do the same.


----------



## Sawney Beane

farsidejunky said:


> The former was painted in a perfectly rational light...
> 
> The latter was painted in a manner that invalidates and belittles the position.
> 
> This is a perfect example of the bad faith I just referenced.


Not sure what you mean? There are people on this thread that have pointed out that Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot (i.e. real dictators/mass murderers/warmongers) were anti gun ownership. Have I misconstrued the idea that control of / resistance to the federal government is a real, major rationale for American gun ownership?

All of this is alien in the UK. Our last school shooting was 1996. Handguns were banned and we haven't had a school shooting since. Shootings of any kind are rare, highly unusual events - outside our understanding. Likewise owning guns, outside farmers with shotguns and ex-forces like me, many Brits never see a real gun their entire lives, much less shot regularly.


----------



## Sawney Beane

Pantone429c said:


> So you are out of shape 40 something a pretty wife 5 beautiful daughters. You live 50miles from the nearest town and 2 mile from your nearest neighbor. And trouble comes a knocking at 2 AM......let that sink in.....do you wish that at the very least you had a shotgun.........or would you be okay with a baseball bat?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Me personally? I'd be happier with my INIBA, half a dozen grenades and a rifle, but please not the POS early-model SA80 I was issued with. But there's no way on the good green earth I would trust any of my neighbours to be armed with anything other than a peashooter. They'd be far more of a danger to me and my family than any burglar.


----------



## SpinyNorman

Yeswecan said:


> The mental illness is the issue. From my understanding all involved with these shootings have at one time been under a doctors care. Is it possible the drugs in some way assisted in making decisions like shooting kids at a school? I would think they could. I'm not an expert on that. But you know, some drug made an entire village under the leadership of Jim Jones drink Kool Aid loaded with poison. The mind is capable of anything.


I don't know that the population of Jonestown was drugged, but I know some were forced to drink the poison at gunpoint, some probably didn't know it was poison(there had been similar events w/ wine that turned out not to be poisoned), some ran off and others were shot attempting to escape. Some were probably consciously willing to die.


----------



## Pantone429c

The old saying. “God made all men and women but Sam Colt made them equal”


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Thor

Sawney Beane said:


> Me personally? I'd be happier with my INIBA, half a dozen grenades and a rifle, but please not the POS early-model SA80 I was issued with. But there's no way on the good green earth I would trust any of my neighbours to be armed with anything other than a peashooter. *They'd be far more of a danger to me and my family than any burglar.*


In the USA this is far from statistically true.

This is part of the mis-information campaign waged by the progressive left. They even tout some specific numbers from outrageously flawed "studies", which then become commonly accepted as fact. I see them every day in social media memes and spouted on national television shows. Vladimir Lenin's propaganda theory has proven correct - repeat the lie often enough and it becomes a fact.

Now maybe *your* neighbors are a bunch of meth head drug dealers, in which case yes they are a serious danger to you if armed! But in reality a law abiding gun owner is not a threat to neighbors in the USA. The burglar is, as is the car jacker, rapist, or other violent criminal.

As I say in these kinds of threads, my neighborhood, city, and state are amongst the most heavily armed in the country, yet we have amongst the lowest violent crime and murder rates. If it were the guns, we would have blood running in the streets. We would have frequent school shootings and mass murders at concerts or malls. Yet we don't. When my kids were still in school I always legally carried a concealed firearm every single time I was on campus yet I never shot up a classroom. Many teachers and school employees legally carry concealed firearms every day, yet none have shot up a school.


----------



## chillymorn69

Sawney Beane said:


> So basically yes, then? The dead kids ARE a price worth paying, it's terrible for the individual families involved, but acceptable across the population?




?


----------



## chillymorn69

Sawney Beane said:


> Me personally? I'd be happier with my INIBA, half a dozen grenades and a rifle, but please not the POS early-model SA80 I was issued with. But there's no way on the good green earth I would trust any of my neighbours to be armed with anything other than a peashooter. They'd be far more of a danger to me and my family than any burglar.


Thats because as you said the average person in your neck of the woods never even saw a gun.

I know if the **** hit the fan and a nuclear war or other such event happened where having a gun would be a life or death tool . That almost everybody I am close friends owns and knows you to shoot better than most police/military people.


----------



## Windwalker

chillymorn69 said:


> Thats because as you said the average person in your neck of the woods never even saw a gun.
> 
> I know if the **** hit the fan and a nuclear war or other such event happened where having a gun would be a life or death tool . That almost everybody I am close friends owns and knows you to shoot better than most police/military people.


Which brings me to this question. How many of these perps commiting these crimes fit the so called, "*******" description?

Yes, it was sarcasm, and a legitimate question all at the same time. Your post just happened to fit the bill to pose the question.


----------



## chillymorn69

Windwalker said:


> Which brings me to this question. How many of these perps commiting these crimes fit the so called, "*******" description?
> 
> Yes, it was sarcasm, and a legitimate question all at the same time. Your post just happened to fit the bill to pose the question.


Hey hey hay,

I love me a redhead!


----------



## She'sStillGotIt

Notself said:


> Wow. That's ... completely wrong.
> 
> https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/03/americas/us-gun-statistics/index.html
> 
> But that's fake news, right?


The Clinton News Network?

Alrighty, then.


----------



## Thor

Sawney Beane said:


> I would say murder is pretty much always a people problem. But it's easier to murder people with a gun than a knife or your bare hands, especially if you want to murder a lot of people in a short time.


How about a truck or car? Europe and indeed the USA have seen mass killers use vehicles as their tool. How about explosives?

The most deadly school mass killing took place in Bath, New York in 1927. Forty four killed, of which thirty eight were students. The tool was explosives.

Crazy people do crazy things. People determined to kill will find a tool. When was the last time we had a phaser mass murder, or a school light saber killing? Or an elephant used to stomp on students? Since those tools are not available, they aren't used. So a substitute tool is used.


----------



## Middle of Everything

sokillme said:


> My solution is find these kids who don't have friends, generally bullied when they are in like 3rd grade and sent them to a school with other kids like them. Teach them social norms and how to communicate. Give them healthy outlets for their aggression like martial arts but under supervised care. But most importantly teach them how to make emotional connections so they can have a long term investment in something. Friendship.


Holy ****. I just actually read that.


----------



## Rhubarb

In my view most of the gun talk is moot. We have the 2nd amendment and we have the Supreme Court. The 2nd amendment puts no limits on weapons. Only laws do that and then it's up to the Supreme Court to decide how much they want to deviated from the letter of the constitution and allow those laws to stay in place. Now if you want some real gun control talk, we can talk about repealing the 2nd amendment, difficult as that might be.


----------



## Andy1001

I don’t know if anyone else saw this and I’m not reading all the thread to check. An ad on Facebook has a kid about fifteen trying to buy alcohol,cigarettes,and lottery tickets but he was refused in every store. Then he legally bought a gun at a show. I don’t know what state it was but ****ing hells bells.


----------



## Middle of Everything

Andy1001 said:


> I don’t know if anyone else saw this and I’m not reading all the thread to check. An ad on Facebook has a kid about fifteen trying to buy alcohol,cigarettes,and lottery tickets but he was refused in every store. Then he legally bought a gun at a show. I don’t know what state it was but ****ing hells bells.


I wouldnt doubt it, but........

Refused alcohol, cigarettes and lottery tickets in EVERY store? Come on. There are some loser ****ing store clerks out there who dont give a ****.

And its the internet. Cant believe anything you read these days Andy, if that is indeed your real name.


----------



## GTdad

These are the boys and young men, and women, we should be focused on:

Army honors three students killed in Parkland shooting - Sun Sentinel


----------



## toblerone

arbitrator said:


> *I've got more than a strange, fleeting feeling that these kids from that Florida high school are going to ultimately turn the gun laws and the NRA on its ear!
> 
> I see where yet another heavily-funded NRA-backed GOP Florida Congressman has decided not to rerun for his Congressional seat!*


Sorry dude but Sandy Hook is proof that America is fine with the annual sacrifice of dozens of kids to protect an interpretation of the 2nd amendment.



EllisRedding said:


> There are so many other issues though that need to be addressed (mental health, over medication, glamorization of violence, family structure, etc...). These are all pieces to a puzzle that we need to solve in order to figure out what the heck is going on.


No one's championing any laws to try to deal with it in this way, and most importantly, no one's going to fund it.



Thor said:


> How about a truck or car? Europe and indeed the USA have seen mass killers use vehicles as their tool. How about explosives?
> 
> The most deadly school mass killing took place in Bath, New York in 1927. Forty four killed, of which thirty eight were students. The tool was explosives.
> 
> Crazy people do crazy things. *People determined to kill will find a tool.* When was the last time we had a phaser mass murder, or a school light saber killing? Or an elephant used to stomp on students? Since those tools are not available, they aren't used. So a substitute tool is used.


The part I bolded is why I think the whole argument is disingenuous.

A couple of the last mass shootings really didn't even need to be all that determined to get the best tool for the job.

Kids in school don't train for the possibility of a car going from classroom to classroom running people over.

There wasn't a rash of drive by pipe bombings back in South Central in the 90's.

People visiting Las Vegas aren't afraid of some guy throwing knives at them from 10 floors up.


And the thing with gun violence is that mass shootings are kind of a small part of it. Most gun crime is from handguns. A hell of a lot of people use guns to kill themselves.



Rhubarb said:


> In my view most of the gun talk is moot. We have the 2nd amendment and we have the Supreme Court. The 2nd amendment puts no limits on weapons. Only laws do that and then it's up to the Supreme Court to decide how much they want to deviated from the letter of the constitution and allow those laws to stay in place. Now if you want some real gun control talk, we can talk about repealing the 2nd amendment, difficult as that might be.


It's easier to get the Supreme Court to update an opinion regarding the rights of the 2nd, than to get it repealed. _Vastly_ easier, especially in the current political climate. I don't think the 2nd amendment necessarily needs to be repealed.


----------



## Notself

So now the gun lobby and its lackeys are going to smear the Parkland kids.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/21/us/david-hogg-conspiracy-theories-response/index.html

Why not? It completely and totally worked after Sandy Hook. There are hundreds of thousands of people who believe it _never actually happened._

And by the way, a Republican lawmaker is complicit in spreading the word:
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/21/politics/florida-lawmaker-aide-fired/index.html


----------



## Rhubarb

toblerone said:


> It's easier to get the Supreme Court to update an opinion regarding the rights of the 2nd, than to get it repealed. _Vastly_ easier, especially in the current political climate. I don't think the 2nd amendment necessarily needs to be repealed.


To me this just propagates the ongoing problem. We let 9 guys who seve for life decide this huge issue for the entire country.


----------



## Thor

toblerone said:


> The part I bolded is why I think the whole argument is disingenuous.
> 
> A couple of the last mass shootings really didn't even need to be all that determined to get the best tool for the job.
> 
> Kids in school don't train for the possibility of a car going from classroom to classroom running people over.
> 
> There wasn't a rash of drive by pipe bombings back in South Central in the 90's.
> 
> People visiting Las Vegas aren't afraid of some guy throwing knives at them from 10 floors up.


Yet if somehow you magically made every firearm disappear, a mentally disturbed young adult could easily use a vehicle to mow down children outside of the school. Three minutes after the dismissal bell would guarantee the front area would be packed with kids leaving school for the day. No need to drive down the hallways from classroom to classroom.

If you think criminals do abide by any gun laws, you are are deluded. Gangs engaged in drive by shootings are not going to turn in their weapons! They didn't do drive by pipe bombings because a different tool was available *illegally on the black market* despite all the laws in place at the time. If you could magically make all illegal guns disappear, gangs would either steal more guns or would find other tools for their mayhem.

The motivations of the Las Vegas shooter are still being kept secret from the public, but let's discuss the bump stock and AR-15. Arguably the bump stock slowed his rate of fire. He had numerous jammed weapons, which is a well known problem with bump stocks. His firing was sporadic, though when he was firing the rate of fire was very fast. But he had long periods of down time due to jams or switching weapons. A regular semi-auto rifle with no bump stock can fire at the same rate as a bump stock equipped rifle, except our finger can't move that rapidly. But a slower rate of fire means no jamming. At say 4 rounds per second manually, using only 10 round magazines, and a 2 second reload (these are easily obtainable performances), this would mean 10 rounds every 4.5 seconds. Round it up to 5 seconds and you get 2 rounds per second average rate of fire. That's 120 rounds per minute. The Las Vegas shooter fired 1100 rounds in 10 minutes, or an average of 110 rounds per minute.

If guns were magically made to disappear, he could have gone Boston Marathon style and brought in explosives, or he could have picked another target using a different method of mass murder.

So name the law that would have prevented the Las Vegas shooting.


----------



## Buddy400

EllisRedding said:


> Would your solution be to ban all guns to the public?


I'm not a purist so, if it were possible to eliminate ALL guns in the United States (which would involve revoking the 2nd amendment), I might go along with it.

But, it's not actually possible. So, I don't see the point in even considering the hypothetical.


----------



## Buddy400

Sawney Beane said:


> Not necessarily. That's a related, but separate question. What I'm trying to weigh up is that if the genuine belief is that the deaths of kids or whomever in these massacres is a reasonable price for the possession of firearms to preserve liberty in the US, then politicians or whomever should have the courage to say so in so many words.


Are the lives of thousands of people a year actually a reasonable price to pay for allowing cars to travel in excess of 20 mph?


----------



## toblerone

Thor said:


> Yet if somehow you magically made every firearm disappear, a mentally disturbed young adult could easily use a vehicle to mow down children outside of the school.


But why aren't they doing that _now_?

You keep saying things are just as easy, but those just as easy ways are hardly ever chosen.

It's not just the tool that is effective, it's the allure of the gun for a lot of broken people.



> If you think criminals do abide by any gun laws, you are are deluded.


That argument in a nutshell:











> Gangs engaged in drive by shootings are not going to turn in their weapons! They didn't do drive by pipe bombings because a different tool was available *illegally on the black market* despite all the laws in place at the time.


I think you may have missed the point!



> If you could magically make all illegal guns disappear, gangs would either steal more guns or would find other tools for their mayhem.


In other words, make it harder for them to obtain weapons that aren't important because cars, knives, and bombs are just as useful!



> If guns were magically made to disappear, he could have gone Boston Marathon style and brought in explosives, or he could have picked another target using a different method of mass murder.


So why did he pick a gun? These "just as easily" arguments are bunk.


----------



## Buddy400

samyeagar said:


> Blaming it on men and toxic masculinity, which is the premise of this post as demonstrated in the articles at the beginning, is not really going to help matters.
> 
> I'll tell ya, as a card carrying liberal who has voted democratic in every election since I was 18, primaries included, I'm getting pretty sick of being blamed for things. It gets tough after a while telling myself that people are generalizing, not talking about me specifically, greater good, and all that, especially when some of these far left people whom have been embraced by the democratic party are actually meaning each and every man, me included. I can definitely understand the backlash feelings many people have been having that allowed Trump to end up in the White House.


This is the issue I believe the OP was trying to address.


----------



## Buddy400

FrenchFry said:


> I have empathy for you, it sucks being lumped into one group, treated as a monolith and blamed for all ills for anyone who looks like you.
> 
> Here is what I've been told, maybe it will help you:
> 
> I'm not talking about you, you are one of the good ones.





samyeagar said:


> I do appreciate what you are saying, and as it applies to interpersonal relationships, that's fine, but when it starts to encroach on public policy territory...as you know all too well French Fry...
> 
> Again, I say this as a liberal democrat, and for example, have always stood against lumping all Muslims, and followers of the Islamic faith into the group called terrorists that some on the far right liked to publicly do. I always spoke out against that and defended the individual. Well, the far left has now openly engaged in the exact same behaviour they have decried the far right for for so long. I am not OK with anyone doing it, and will not support anyone who engages in it, even if there is some greater good being claimed.


But, what I think she's saying is that you may be "good" if you aren't "toxic-ally masculine".

The question, of course, is what does "toxic masculinity" consist of?


----------



## FrenchFry

Buddy400 said:


> But, what I think she's saying is that you may be "good" if you aren't "toxic-ally masculine".
> 
> The question, of course, is what does "toxic masculinity" consist of?


Not what I'm saying at all.

I'm saying I know it sucks to be lumped into a group because that is pretty much my life experience. Sorry you have to experience it now.

I also know from experience that it doesn't really matter what you as an individual does. I know that there is a good chance I'm going to be followed in a store. Sorry that you now have to deal with people looking at you like you might snap and kill a bunch of people.


----------



## FrenchFry

Buddy400 said:


> But, what I think she's saying is that you may be "good" if you aren't "toxic-ally masculine".
> 
> The question, of course, is what does "toxic masculinity" consist of?


Also, I give two ****s about ally-ship.


----------



## Thor

toblerone said:


> You keep saying things are just as easy, but those just as easy ways are hardly ever chosen.
> 
> It's not just the tool that is effective, it's the allure of the gun for a lot of broken people.
> .
> .
> .
> In other words, make it harder for them to obtain weapons that aren't important because cars, knives, and bombs are just as useful!
> 
> So why did he pick a gun? These "just as easily" arguments are bunk.


No, a gun is probably easier than building, placing, and using a bomb. Renting a truck is pretty easy. Using your own vehicle is super easy.

The point is one of _substitution_ which is well documented and completely logical. If you magically made every gun disappear, substitutes would immediately become available and used. Those alternate items are already available and are used by some people, like driving trucks through crowds.

If you banned the AR-15, and could actually round them all up, school shooters would use handguns, or shotguns, or a non-AR rifle with just as devastating effect.

We already have lots of laws which made acquisition and possession of the weapon illegal in these school or mass shootings. The killers used straw purchases, theft, or black market purchase to acquire the guns. Or, the existing background check system database failed to have their name in there when it should have been. We also have laws whereby a person can be involuntarily institutionalized for mental health evaluation, which would then result in that person be federally prohibited from purchasing or possessing a firearm and would thus put their name on the prohibited list for background checks.

Banning the AR or putting roadblocks in the way of law abiding citizens will do nothing to hinder those who don't play within the lawful system. They will continue to use straw purchases, steal guns, or buy on the black market.


----------



## arbitrator

Andy1001 said:


> I don’t know if anyone else saw this and I’m not reading all the thread to check. An ad on Facebook has a kid about fifteen trying to buy alcohol,cigarettes,and lottery tickets but he was refused in every store. Then he legally bought a gun at a show. I don’t know what state it was but ****ing hells bells.


*The damned NRA would readily sanction sales of firearms to infants, if they could find themselves an avenue to get away with it!*


----------



## Sawney Beane

Thor said:


> No, a gun is probably easier than building, placing, and using a bomb. Renting a truck is pretty easy. Using your own vehicle is super easy.


Killing half a dozen people this way is not difficulty. Two dozen isn't so simple.



> If you banned the AR-15, and could actually round them all up, school shooters would use handguns, or shotguns, or a non-AR rifle with just as devastating effect.
> 
> 
> Banning the AR or putting roadblocks in the way of law abiding citizens will do nothing to hinder those who don't play within the lawful system. They will continue to use straw purchases, steal guns, or buy on the black market.


In the immediate aftermath of the Dunblane massacre all handguns were outlawed in the UK. All legally held handguns were taken out of circulation. At the same time, rifles (rare) and shotguns (relatively common in rural areas I think) were not banned. Since that time we have not had a school shooting Dunblane-style. Occasional stabbings but we had those before. At least here the substitution theory doesn't seem to have been supported.


----------



## samyeagar

FrenchFry said:


> Not what I'm saying at all.
> 
> I'm saying I know it sucks to be lumped into a group because that is pretty much my life experience. Sorry you have to experience it now.
> 
> I also know from experience that it doesn't really matter what you as an individual does. I know that there is a good chance I'm going to be followed in a store. Sorry that you now have to deal with people looking at you like you might snap and kill a bunch of people.


I don't really give two ****s how other people look at me and my toxic masculinity, but I can't support those who support, advocate, align themselves with or otherwise promote these kinds of ideas.


----------



## Sawney Beane

Thor said:


> How about a truck or car? Europe and indeed the USA have seen mass killers use vehicles as their tool. How about explosives?
> 
> The most deadly school mass killing took place in Bath, New York in 1927. Forty four killed, of which thirty eight were students. The tool was explosives.
> 
> Crazy people do crazy things. People determined to kill will find a tool. When was the last time we had a phaser mass murder, or a school light saber killing? Or an elephant used to stomp on students? Since those tools are not available, they aren't used. So a substitute tool is used.


FTR I don't need any lectures about explosives. I saw the results of too many IEDs during two tours in Ulster.


----------



## arbitrator

toblerone said:


> Sorry dude but Sandy Hook is proof that America is fine with the annual sacrifice of dozens of kids to protect an interpretation of the 2nd amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> No one's championing any laws to try to deal with it in this way, and most importantly, no one's going to fund it.
> 
> 
> 
> The part I bolded is why I think the whole argument is disingenuous.
> 
> A couple of the last mass shootings really didn't even need to be all that determined to get the best tool for the job.
> 
> Kids in school don't train for the possibility of a car going from classroom to classroom running people over.
> 
> There wasn't a rash of drive by pipe bombings back in South Central in the 90's.
> 
> People visiting Las Vegas aren't afraid of some guy throwing knives at them from 10 floors up.
> 
> 
> And the thing with gun violence is that mass shootings are kind of a small part of it. Most gun crime is from handguns. A hell of a lot of people use guns to kill themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> It's easier to get the Supreme Court to update an opinion regarding the rights of the 2nd, than to get it repealed. _Vastly_ easier, especially in the current political climate. I don't think the 2nd amendment necessarily needs to be repealed.


*"People determined to kill will find a tool!"*

*It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that it is far easier to escape an assassin with a knife than it is with something of the killing action of a an AR-15 Assault Rifle or an automatic weapon in their hands!

*


----------



## Thor

Sawney Beane said:


> Killing half a dozen people this way is not difficulty. Two dozen isn't so simple.
> 
> 
> 
> In the immediate aftermath of the Dunblane massacre all handguns were outlawed in the UK. All legally held handguns were taken out of circulation. At the same time, rifles (rare) and shotguns (relatively common in rural areas I think) were not banned. Since that time we have not had a school shooting Dunblane-style. Occasional stabbings but we had those before. At least here the substitution theory doesn't seem to have been supported.



How prevalent were mass shootings in the UK before the ban?

In the USA it is a people problem. The availability of a gun does not inspire the crime. The most common firearm used in a mass shooting is the handgun, not the AR-15. What most highly correlates with all mass shootings in the USA is the use of psychotropic drugs. Virtually every mass shooter was on or was recently on serious psych meds. There are many studies which show violent side effects of these drugs. Yet nobody is willing to even look at that angle. Nobody is willing to discuss institutionalizing people with obvious mental illness, because you know it would violate their civil right to liberty and most of them would never harm anybody.

As to using bombs or or other methods as substitutes, did you see my earlier post that the largest body count mass school murder was accomplished with explosives? Yes, you can kill a lot of people using other than a firearm.


----------



## Thor

arbitrator said:


> *"People determined to find a weapon will get one!"*
> 
> *It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that it is far easier to escape an assassin with a knife than it is with something of the killing action of a an AR-15 Assault Rifle or an automatic weapon in their hands!
> 
> *


Define "Assault Rifle".

Which automatic weapons have been used in any mass killing in the last 50 years in the USA? If you know of any, was the weapon legally obtained and possessed?


----------



## Mr. Nail

I agree we need to get some anti gun legislation running, gun sales are down across the country since the change in **** taters. A bill this month could save remington.


----------



## Sawney Beane

By most (non-exhaustive) definitions, an AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle anyway, as it is not (as I understand it) a selective fire weapon.


----------



## Buddy400

Buddy400 said:


> But, what I think she's saying is that you may be "good" if you aren't "toxic-ally masculine".
> 
> The question, of course, is what does "toxic masculinity" consist of?





FrenchFry said:


> Not what I'm saying at all.
> 
> I'm saying I know it sucks to be lumped into a group because that is pretty much my life experience. Sorry you have to experience it now.
> 
> I also know from experience that it doesn't really matter what you as an individual does. I know that there is a good chance I'm going to be followed in a store. Sorry that you now have to deal with people looking at you like you might snap and kill a bunch of people.


I apologize.

When you said "I'm not talking about you, you are one of the good ones."

That initially sounded to me a lot like "I'm not talking about you, you aren't one of those cheap jews" or "I'm not talking about you, you aren't one of those lazy black people"; etc.

There was no reason for me to think that's what you were trying to say.


----------



## Buddy400

Rhubarb said:


> To me this just propagates the ongoing problem. We let 9 guys who seve for life decide this huge issue for the entire country.


It's better than having 435 people change the rules every two years.


----------



## Buddy400

Thor said:


> Define "Assault Rifle".
> 
> Which automatic weapons have been used in any mass killing in the last 50 years in the USA? If you know of any, was the weapon legally obtained and possessed?


That's the most interesting thing.

Nobody knows what an "Assault Rifle" is. It's a semi-automatic rifle. Just like hand guns are semi-automatic. 

The only thing separating an AR-15 from a semi-automatic rifle is the fact that it *looks* like a military weapon. 

Automatic weapons have been illegal for a long time.


----------



## sokillme

Middle of Everything said:


> Holy ****. I just actually read that.


Huh?


----------



## Rhubarb

Buddy400 said:


> It's better than having 435 people change the rules every two years.


By that logic would could just have a king. I don't think 9 unelected guys are very responsive to the public. That has good points and bad.


----------



## Thor

Rhubarb said:


> By that logic would could just have a king. I don't think 9 unelected guys are very responsive to the public. That has good points and bad.


They are not supposed to be responsive to the public. Their authority as granted in the Constitution Article III Section 2: 


> The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;10 —between Citizens of different States, —between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.


Note there is no authority granted to declare a law Constitutional or not! This power of _judicial review_ was taken by the Supreme Court for themselves in the Marbury v ******* case of 1803.

Regardless it may be arguable that the basic tenet of judicial review existed due to pre-existence in English law. I am not sure what the Founders intended here in the way of a balance of power.

Nevertheless, SCOTUS by no means has any authority to apply present day public sentiment to their deliberations. They are charged with applying the law, with the COTUS as the top level and then flowing down to federal laws. COTUS is not a suggestion or idea, it is a *law* which must be applied as written and intended unless it is changed via the lawful amendment process.


----------



## FrenchFry

samyeagar said:


> Blaming it on men and toxic masculinity, which is the premise of this post as demonstrated in the articles at the beginning, is not really going to help matters.





samyeagar said:


> I don't really give two ****s how other people look at me and my toxic masculinity, but I can't support those who support, advocate, align themselves with or otherwise promote these kinds of ideas.


Then why are you getting tired of being blamed for this?

Which is why I empathize - to a point. As far as your support goes is how far empathy goes. So I feel bad that you feel blamed. Trying to blame me for what ails you? Used to it, doesn't phase me.

Running to the people blaming me instead? - well I mean that immediately becomes a "not my problem." 

So, this is not my problem. I've got my own to deal with and support or not, I'm going to deal with them.


----------



## farsidejunky

*Re: A letter to the boys &amp; young men of America*



Sawney Beane said:


> FTR I don't need any lectures about explosives. I saw the results of too many IEDs during two tours in Ulster.


Speaking as a retired Soldier, this means you know all too well their capabilities.

Can we now return to discussion without seeking moral superiority based on experience?


----------



## Buddy400

Rhubarb said:


> By that logic would could just have a king. I don't think 9 unelected guys are very responsive to the public. That has good points and bad.


A king for the really important stuff and a congress for the rest.


----------



## Buddy400

FrenchFry said:


> Then why are you getting tired of being blamed for this?
> 
> Which is why I empathize - to a point. As far as your support goes is how far empathy goes. So I feel bad that you feel blamed. Trying to blame me for what ails you? Used to it, doesn't phase me.
> 
> Running to the people blaming me instead? - well I mean that immediately becomes a "not my problem."
> 
> So, this is not my problem. I've got my own to deal with and support or not, I'm going to deal with them.


I'm not sure I get this. Not sure what "running to the people blaming me instead?" means.

I do feel as if society is turning pretty significantly anti-male (or anti-masculinity) even though it has absolutely no negative affect on me and even though I am certain I don't do any (most) of the things that men get blamed for.

Is Lebron James personally affected by racism? If not, does he not have a right to care about racism and want to do something about it?

Heck, I'm not black and* I *care about racism.


----------



## As'laDain

i dont really know anything about this latest shooter in florida, but if statistics tells me anything, he grew up without a father. 

fatherlessness and violence is something that a lot more people should be talking about. 

name a man who is in prison for committing a violent crime. any violent crime. now place bets on whether he grew up with a father or not. 7 or 8 times out of ten, the money on fatherlessness would win.


----------



## Rhubarb

Thor said:


> They are not supposed to be responsive to the public. Their authority as granted in the Constitution Article III Section 2:


No they aren't but that doesn't make it inherently a good idea. We have a president that was elected by 2.8 million votes less than his opponent. That's also in the constitution, but many people would call it inherently flawed. 

In any case no matter what you think the court should or shouldn't be a able to do, they do have the power to neuter the 2nd amendment and have already done so to some extent. Sometimes all they have to do is not accept a case. 

For instance by the actual wording of the 2nd amendment, it is there to give states the power to raise an auxiliary fighting force from armed citizens (the militia) when needed to defend the state. This is quite archaic but it's still on the books so to speak. If nobody had arms or knew how to use them, that would have been a much more time consuming process. The militia was originally distinct from the regular army. These days there is really no concept of a militia as envisioned back in the day. 

In order for such a militia to be effective it implies that their weapons should be somewhat on par with those used by an invading military. Yet still, automatic weapons are banned in the US (special permits aside). There is no allowance for this banning in the constitution. The court simply chooses to let it slide, for the perceived good of the nation. 

So in short, the court has the ultimate power here, irregardless if you think it should.


----------



## Cletus

I'll be coming home tomorrow from two week's in Germany.

I'm certainly tired of having to answer questions about America's tolerance for the killing of its citizenry, most importantly its school children every time I visit - because inevitably, even though "now's not the time to talk about it", every time I've come over here there's been a recent enough incident that the people in a foreign country are fully aware of it. One of my colleagues made the statement "Doesn't it cross a line when you're teaching lock-down drills in classrooms?"

Because it doesn't happen here.


----------



## john117

username77 said:


> Not really fake news, but how statistics can be used to bolster any argument. Central and South America are by far the deadliest countries in the world when it comes to gun violence. And Europe as a whole has more mass shootings and deadlier. Norway, Serbia, France, Macedonia, Albania, Slovakia, Switzerland, Finland, Belgium, and the Czech Republic all have a higher death rate per 1,000,000 citizens (for mass shootings), than the United States between 2009 - 2015.
> 
> Not that our mass shooting situation is good, it's horrible, but other countries are just as bad or worse.


Not sure about other countries, but for France specifically,the above is bull.

There were plenty of mass shooting deaths in France. All due to terrorism,which is nowhere near the same thing. But it simply demonstrates the intellectual corruption of the pro gun crowd . 

Central or South America likely narco related. Serbia I'm guessing ethnic cleansing... 

Give me a break.


----------



## john117

And Switzerland shows one incident in the last several decades... If you're going to make numbers up choose a more obscure country


----------



## username77

john117 said:


> Not sure about other countries, but for France specifically,the above is bull.
> 
> There were plenty of mass shooting deaths in France. All due to terrorism,which is nowhere near the same thing. But it simply demonstrates the intellectual corruption of the pro gun crowd .
> 
> Central or South America likely narco related. Serbia I'm guessing ethnic cleansing...
> 
> Give me a break.


It's not bull, between 2009 - 2015 France averaged 0.098 per 1 million people in terms of frequency of mass shootings compared to the US 0.078, and France also averaged a death rate from mass public shootings of 0.347 compared to the US 0.089 per million.

It's funny I already posted in a previous post in this very thread that I am FOR the banning of all semi automatic rifles and all handguns. Yet you can only resort to ad hominem attacks instead of realizing the issue is a lot more complex and a lot more common than just an American problem.


----------



## arbitrator

Cletus said:


> I'll be coming home tomorrow from two week's in Germany.
> 
> *I'm certainly tired of having to answer questions about America's tolerance for the killing of its citizenry, most importantly its school children every time I visit - because inevitably, even though "now's not the time to talk about it", every time I've come over here there's been a recent enough incident that the people in a foreign country are fully aware of it. One of my colleagues made the statement "Doesn't it cross a line when you're teaching lock-down drills in classrooms?"
> 
> Because it doesn't happen here.*


*Isn't it absolutely amazing that it's only the United States that condones the killing of its children in schools, and its citizenry in public places so that the NRA can defend placing assault weapons and rifles into the hands of "mentality deficients," people who have absolutely no business getting an AR in 15 minutes with an invalid ID!

Assault weapons have no place in our society other than to kill people ~ not animals! And should be banned as such except for military and police SWAT usage!

Australia was the last non-American nation that had the last school mass-shootings. The Australian government and legislature had the cajones to pass legislation banning these weapons of mass destruction and there have been no repeated incidents! If there is an NRA type of organization there, they certainly defeated it!

Tell me: When is the United States going to have the common sense to do the same?*


----------



## EllisRedding

arbitrator said:


> Assault weapons have no place in our society other than to kill people ~ not animals! And should be banned as such except for military and police SWAT usage!
> 
> Australia was the last non-American nation that had the last school mass-shootings. The Australian government and legislature had the cajones to pass legislation banning these weapons of mass destruction and there have been no repeated incidents! If there is an NRA type of organization there, they certainly defeated it!


I am not a gun guy so I don't know a whole lot about, what makes a gun specifically an assault weapon and not just a gun? The AR-15 gets pointed to as an Assault Rifle, why specifically? Is it the magazine capability, etc...?


----------



## username77

EllisRedding said:


> I am not a gun guy so I don't know a whole lot about, what makes a gun specifically an assault weapon and not just a gun? The AR-15 gets pointed to as an Assault Rifle, why specifically? Is it the magazine capability, etc...?


Semi automatic, can take high capacity magazines, modifiable easily into 3 round burst or fully automatic capable, gas operated, collapsable stock, lightweight, muzzle suppressor, pistol grip, 5.56mm rounds (basically a 22 round with a ton of powder, extremely destructive when it hits flesh, can't hunt with these because it tears the animals apart from the inside out. The US Marines are basically being issued an AR-15 (M4 Carbine for most, many infantry will be issued the M27 Infantry Rifle which is automatic) for the bulk of their force, they're removing the 3 round burst capability of the M-16 because it's a waste of ammo. And well... it looks the part to be honest. 

But there are plenty of rifles as capable or more of damage on par with an AR-15 that look like grandpas varmint rifle. But the AR-15 IS an assault rifle, nearly identical to what the US Government issues Marines and Soldiers to kill the enemy in the most expedient manner. It's good for nothing other than killing people.










The rifle on the top and bottom are the same rifle a Ruger Mini 14. The Ruger is as capable an assault rifle as the AR, it just doesn't look scary and looks like a normal hunting rifle so it wouldn't be banned. It can take high capacity magazines, fires .223 rounds, semi-automatic, easily adaptable with a pistol grip.

Here is the same Ruger Mini 14 all "gussied up" but really still the exact same capabilities as the one that looks like an old bolt action hunting rifle.










So banning the top gun and allowing the bottom gun will do nothing. 

In short an "assault rifle" has always been defined as "capable of automatic fire" while the civilian version only allows one shot per trigger pull. That definition is evolving based on evidence that fully automatic isn't necessary for mass killings via 1 rifle.


----------



## EllisRedding

username77 said:


> Semi automatic, can take high capacity magazines, modifiable easily into 3 round burst or fully automatic capable, gas operated, collapsable stock, lightweight, muzzle suppressor, pistol grip, 5.56mm rounds (basically a 22 round with a ton of powder, extremely destructive when it hits flesh, can't hunt with these because it tears the animals apart from the inside out. The US Marines are basically being issued an AR-15 (M4 Carbine for most, many infantry will be issued the M27 Infantry Rifle which is automatic) for the bulk of their force, they're removing the 3 round burst capability of the M-16 because it's a waste of ammo. And well... it looks the part to be honest.
> 
> But there are plenty of rifles as capable or more of damage on par with an AR-15 that look like grandpas varmint rifle. But the AR-15 IS an assault rifle, nearly identical to what the US Government issues Marines and Soldiers to kill the enemy in the most expedient manner. It's good for nothing other than killing people.


Thanks. I was just searching online as well as came across this article (once again, not a gun guy so can't say if accurate), which does seem to tie in with your post. The article does mention the AR-15 is not used for big game hunting because it cannot take down an animal humanely, but the article refers to it as a low powered rifle?

When You Hear Someone Call an AR-15 an Assault Rifle, Show Them This | Tribunist


----------



## arbitrator

EllisRedding said:


> I am not a gun guy so I don't know a whole lot about, what makes a gun specifically an assault weapon and not just a gun? The AR-15 gets pointed to as an Assault Rifle, why specifically? Is it the magazine capability, etc...?


*I'm not really that much of a gun afficianado either, Ellis, but I believe that it's a combination of its rapid firing capability along with it being very easily reloaded with bullet clips!

They were definitely not built for deer hunters!*


----------



## naiveonedave

the problem I have with the gun modification is easy argument is there is ZERO proof any of these tragedies happened or were made worse with modified weapons. The only one I know if the Vegas one, and the gun jammed so often, he had to switch weapons. It probably lowered his overall rate of fire.


----------



## EllisRedding

naiveonedave said:


> the problem I have with the gun modification is easy argument is there is ZERO proof any of these tragedies happened or were made worse with modified weapons. The only one I know if the Vegas one, and the gun jammed so often, he had to switch weapons. It probably lowered his overall rate of fire.


That is in part what I am trying to figure out. Let's say this shooter didn't have access to the AR 15, but was able to load up with several basic handguns (whatever that is). Could he not have done the same amount of damage with a weapon not classified as an assault weapon or modifications?


----------



## arbitrator

EllisRedding said:


> That is in part what I am trying to figure out. Let's say this shooter didn't have access to the AR 15, but was able to load up with several basic handguns (whatever that is). Could he not have done the same amount of damage with a weapon not classified as an assault weapon or modifications?


*With access to "bumpstocks," that is entirely too possible!

But then again, even one solitary life taken by some deranged, gun-wielding assassin is just one life too many*


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

arbitrator said:


> *With access to "bumpstocks," that is entirely too possible!
> 
> But then again, even one solitary life taken by some deranged, gun-wielding assassin is just one life too many*


My state has banned bump stocks and now the President has promoted one at the federal level.


----------



## farsidejunky

arbitrator said:


> *With access to "bumpstocks," that is entirely too possible!
> 
> But then again, even one solitary life taken by some deranged, gun-wielding assassin is just one life too many*


This impossible standard you have laid out in your latter paragraph is exactly why your side will never make progress with those who oppose gun control.


----------



## arbitrator

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> My state has banned bump stocks and now the President has promoted one at the federal level.


*But the NRA said that it may legally challenge those laws!

God, I hope so!

It may well take the judiciary to finally stick it down their craw! After all, the money-coddling, NRA supportive, GOP-controlled, Federal legislative branch is nowhere close to wanting to support the rights of the school children of not being wantonly shot at in what should be a safe zone, as opposed to the legislators rights to abscond with all of the NRA-mandated political contributions to their campaign coffers, so long as they remain totally in lockstep with the precepts of the NRA political agenda!*


----------



## username77

EllisRedding said:


> but the article refers to it as a low powered rifle?


They call it low powered to fit their argument. Technically a .223 is a .22 caliber round, which is used for varmint hunting and typically a boys first caliber rifle. BUT the 5.56 mm .223 is not your ordinary .22. It has a ton of powder behind the round and travels at such a velocity that it's maximum effective range is greater than 800 meters. The velocity causes flesh to be torn and the rounds size will deflect off bone tearing the target apart. In boot camp they took pride in telling us that with the M-16 you can shoot someone in the leg and have the round exit their shoulder.

The 5.56 mm ammunition that is used in the AR-15 is the exact same round used in the M-16 A2 service rifle used by all Soldiers and Marines since Vietnam. 

Do you think our government would issue a "low powered rifle" as the primary killing weapon for our infantry?


----------



## farsidejunky

arbitrator said:


> *But the NRA said that it may legally challenge those laws!
> 
> God, I hope so!
> 
> It may well take the judiciary to finally stick it down their craw! After all, the money-coddling, NRA supportive, GOP-controlled, Federal legislative branch is nowhere close to wanting to support the rights of the school children of not being wantonly shot at in what should be a safe zone, as opposed to the legislators rights to abscond with all of the NRA- mandated political contributions to their campaign coffers, so long as they remain totally in lockstep with the precepts of the NRA political agenda!*


Where do you think the NRA gets their money?

If they weren't doing what their members wanted to have happen, they would eventually wield far less political power.


----------



## Thor

arbitrator said:


> *Isn't it absolutely amazing that it's only the United States that condones the killing of its children in schools, and its citizenry in public places so that the NRA can defend placing assault weapons and rifles into the hands of "mentality deficients," people who have absolutely no business getting an AR in 15 minutes with an invalid ID!*


This is why there can be no honest discussion in this country on the topic of gun control.


----------



## Thor

username77 said:


> Semi automatic, can take high capacity magazines, modifiable easily into 3 round burst or fully automatic capable, gas operated, collapsable stock, lightweight, muzzle suppressor, pistol grip, 5.56mm rounds (basically a 22 round with a ton of powder, extremely destructive when it hits flesh, can't hunt with these because it tears the animals apart from the inside out.


This describes almost any modern semi-auto rifle. Almost all can be easily modified to full auto if one has access to a machine shop to alter one or two internal parts. The gas operation is not necessary, in fact many ARs are rod operated. Muzzle devices aren't necessary or even helpful, nor is a pistol grip. 5.56 isn't such a monster. Now if we talk about the old 30-06 from WWII then we're talking some energy. Or the .308 which is similar.

Your post with the Mini-14 is exactly why I keep asking people 2 things. What is an "assault weapon", and please describe in some detail the law you would write to outlaw such weapons. Along with that, how would such a law be enforced?

The reason is precisely what you wrote, that once we accept the idea that the AR as an eevil black gun must be outlawed, the only way to do so is to outlaw everything semi-auto. Or, if we just outlaw the AR then there will be an endless number of legal yet functionally identical rifles still available.

Either way we end up with substitution. Concealing a rifle isn't easy, but handguns are. A semi-auto 9mm handgun is as deadly as an AR. School shooters will just use handguns. So we'll need to outlaw semi-auto handguns also.

If you've ever seen a revolver shooter use moon clips or speed loaders, you know they can reload as fast as if they were shooting a semi-auto pistol. Or they could just bring several revolvers to school. Maybe revolvers should be considered as part of a ban.

And then we get to the enforcement aspect. How do we find all the guns and retrieve them? In the real world this is where everything fails. Compliance will be in the single digit percentages. Even were it 100% of the law abiding gun owners, criminal compliance will be 0%, so there will still be millions of guns out there, every one of them in the hands of a criminal!

The entire exercise is predicated on the theory that if guns are not available to the tiny fraction of the population which intends mayhem, they will just stop. They won't find any alternate tool such as truck, explosives, fire, or poison. And the government will be highly successful in actually confiscating guns.


----------



## username77

I'm all for banning all handgun access to civilians, and all semi-auto weapons, rifle or handgun. I see no reason why a homeowner would need access to these for protection. A 12 gauge shotgun is by far your best home defense weapon (that's the reason why in any breach the first guy in is wielding a Mossberg 12 gauge). An AR-15 is useless for hunting, in fact illegal to hunt with in most cases, the caliber is too small for any big game hunting. Other than killing people, target practice is its only purpose.

If the argument for semi-automatic rifles and handguns is to protect us from tyranny I think that's foolish. We are well past an armed citizenry having the ability to overthrow the government. The government has tanks, fighter jets, nukes, daisy cutters, warships, mortars and a 1 million+ man ground force. The ONLY chance we would have to overthrow a tyrannical government is with our military's partial or full cooperation.

Handguns are nuts, the fact that people with basically no training legally run around with fully loaded concealed handguns scares the **** out of me.


----------



## Thor

EllisRedding said:


> Thanks. I was just searching online as well as came across this article (once again, not a gun guy so can't say if accurate), which does seem to tie in with your post. The article does mention the AR-15 is not used for big game hunting because it cannot take down an animal humanely, but the article refers to it as a low powered rifle?
> 
> When You Hear Someone Call an AR-15 an Assault Rifle, Show Them This | Tribunist


The AR is one of the most popular hunting rifles. *Secret Information to Follow. For Your Eyes Only!
*
The AR is a modular mechanism for the trigger and bolt mechanisms. It is not caliber specific. The AR platform is like the Ford F-150 minus the engine and transmission. You can drop any one of many engines and transmissions into it. Likewise the AR is available in many calibers. Some of these are much less powerful, such as 22lr, and some are much more powerful, like the .308. The 6.5 Creedmore is the current fad. You can even build a pistol caliber AR rifle in 9mm or 45ACP. The only real difference is the barrel you screw into the receiver.

The .223 and 5.56 (the same thing) are quite capable of taking down deer humanely. Some states outlaw it, some don't. It is a very popular hunting cartridge especially in the heavier bullet (projectile) weights. The military uses lighter weight bullets for whatever reasons, and those are what are less capable for hunting larger game.

The difference between the AR platform and other semi auto rifles would be analogous to the difference between the F-150 and trucks from Dodge, Chevy, Toyota, etc. Cosmetically they are a bit different, and their guts are different if you get down to looking at the mechanical parts, but they all are still trucks with the same capabilities.


----------



## john117

*Re: A letter to the boys &amp; young men of America*



username77 said:


> It's not bull, between 2009 - 2015 France averaged 0.098 per 1 million people in terms of frequency of mass shootings compared to the US 0.078, and France also averaged a death rate from mass public shootings of 0.347 compared to the US 0.089 per million.
> 
> It's funny I already posted in a previous post in this very thread that I am FOR the banning of all semi automatic rifles and all handguns. Yet you can only resort to ad hominem attacks instead of realizing the issue is a lot more complex and a lot more common than just an American problem.


There were two incidents, one with 150 or so casualties in a concert, the other the Charlie Hebdo incident. Both terrorism.

We aren't talking about that. If we are, that's intellectual corruption of the highest kind. 

How about 2000 to 2017? 1980 to 2017? 

Like the made up number for Switzerland maybe?


----------



## Rhubarb

username77 said:


> Do you think our government would issue a "low powered rifle" as the primary killing weapon for our infantry?


To be fair .223 is not a very powerful round as far as rifles go. The idea is A) it's light enough that a soldier can carry more rounds and B) if you only wound one of the enemy, he has to take resources to rescue that guy. If I recall it's not generally legal for deer hunting because the round is so small so your likelihood of a clean kill is lower. Compare it to a 30-06 which is kind of your standard hunting round. It has about 2800 ft-lbs or so of muzzle energy while a .223 has only 1200 or so.


----------



## Thor

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> My state has banned bump stocks and now the President has promoted one at the federal level.


The current federal law does not permit the federal government to outlaw bump stocks. This is why the BATF under Obama issued their letter saying bump stocks are legal. Every regulation must be supported by a federal law. In this case the existing law does not permit BATF banning the bump stock. 

I think this is Trump's game plan here, to put the issue rightfully onto Congress. Rather than use an executive order to do something not permitted by law, he is telling Congress to stop abdicating it's obligations. Laws take time to pass, and such a ban may or may not actually get through.

Meanwhile he gets to publicly position himself as seeming to support common sense gun control.


----------



## username77

.223 Remington and the 5.56mm NATO rounds are not the same thing. 

No one hunts with an AR-15 shooting a 5.56mm round. I've never seen it and I've been hunting since I was 12 across 7 different states. Most states don't allow it because the caliber isn't large enough and it's considered inhumane.

Anyone trying to sell the AR-15 as a hunting rifle is full of ****.


----------



## username77

Rhubarb said:


> To be fair .223 is not a very powerful round as far as rifles go. The idea is A) it's light enough that a soldier can carry more rounds and B) if you only wound one of the enemy, he has to take resources to rescue that guy. If I recall it's not generally legal for deer hunting because the round is so small so your likelihood of a clean kill is lower. Compare it to a 30-06 which is kind of your standard hunting round. It has about 2800 ft-lbs or so of muzzle energy while a .223 has only 1200 or so.


Study after study has shown that the 5.56MM round does just as much damage as the larger 7.62 MM round due to its velocity and tumbling after impact, with a much higher maximum effective range. I don't know of any training where the goal was just to injure, it was always aiming centermast and to kill the enemy.


----------



## arbitrator

username77 said:


> I'm all for banning all handgun access to civilians, and all semi-auto weapons, rifle or handgun. I see no reason why a homeowner would need access to these for protection. A 12 gauge shotgun is by far your best home defense weapon. An AR-15 is useless for hunting, in fact illegal to hunt with in most cases, the caliber is too small for any big game hunting. Other than killing people, target practice is its only purpose.
> 
> If the argument for semi-automatic rifles and handguns is to protect us from tyranny I think that's foolish. We are well past an armed citizenry having the ability to overthrow the government. The government has tanks, fighter jets, nukes, daisy cutters, warships, mortars and a 1 million+ man ground force. The ONLY chance we would have to overthrow a tyrannical government is with our military's partial or full cooperation.
> 
> Handguns are nuts, the fact that people with basically no training legally run around with fully loaded concealed handguns scares the **** out of me.


*Given this argumentation, the next logical step in the NRA's line of progression would be stinger missles, rocket launchers, and compact nuclear bombs!

All without a single objection to any background, mental stability, or criminal check and largely without regard to age limitations!

Our allegiance is not to the NRA ~ it is to our children's welfare, safety, and well-being!*


----------



## Rowan

On average, 11 teens die each and every day in this country at the hands of....cell phones. Yep. Eleven children each day die in accidents caused by someone texting and driving. It's illegal to do in my state, and likely also in yours. And, yet, here we are. 

Have we, as a society, decided that 11 children per day is simply the acceptable price for the freedom to maintain our cell phone access? No one needs a cell phone. They didn't exist for millennia and everyone did just fine. Why are we putting a clearly dangerous item, that no one really needs, into the hands of our young people? It's killing them in droves! 

It's not the cell phones, you say? It's the poor choices young people make with them? Well, yes, that's obviously true. So it must be the cars, then? No one should have cars? 

But if there's a shooting, the gun is the problem? Is that because kids can't figure out how to kill themselves and other people without a firearm? Fascinating. 



By the way, around 403 people have been killed in school shootings since 1980. Yes, that's too many. No, I don't think it's the most pressing danger to our young people today. I think the most pressing danger to our young people is, and apparently increasingly so, other young people.


----------



## Thor

username77 said:


> I'm all for banning all handgun access to civilians, and all semi-auto weapons, rifle or handgun. I see no reason why a homeowner would need access to these for protection. A 12 gauge shotgun is by far your best home defense weapon. An AR-15 is useless for hunting, in fact illegal to hunt with in most cases, the caliber is too small for any big game hunting. Other than killing people, target practice is its only purpose.


The entire purpose of the 2A is for the populace at large to have weapons of current military use so that they can effectively kill people for defense of liberty. The purpose is not simply defending my home from home invaders, nor is it hunting or target practice.

My rights are not subject to what you see as what I might need to defend my home. That's exactly why our individual rights were put down in the Bill of Rights.

Just as your right to free speech or reasonable search is not subject to what I might like were I in power. Because believe me if I were given the authority and responsibility to effectively reduce crime _without constraint of the Bill of Rights_ you would hate my methods.

I could argue every one of your assertions in that post because you are wrong on all of them, but the higher philosophical issue is that the 2A is there because a well armed and effective populous is necessary to safeguard our freedom. We cannot be well armed or effective if your kind of plan is put in place.


----------



## Mr. Nail

I AM THE N.R.A.
I don't shoot babies or sell nuclear bombs. I'm now leaving this 10 page thread jack.


----------



## username77

Thor said:


> The entire purpose of the 2A is for the populace at large to have weapons of current military use so that they can effectively kill people for defense of liberty. The purpose is not simply defending my home from home invaders, nor is it hunting or target practice.


There is nothing in 2A guaranteeing what type or arms you can bear, when it was written everyone used single shot muzzle loaders. Using your logic any citizen should have unrestricted access to ANY and all military grade weapons to "defend us from tyrranny"?

There is also nothing in 2A guaranteeing that the populace at large has current military grade weapons to kill people with, that is a complete invention by you.



> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


That's 2A, it says nothing of what you interpreted.


----------



## username77

Rowan said:


> By the way, around 403 people have been killed in school shootings since 1980. Yes, that's too many. No, I don't think it's the most pressing danger to our young people today. I think the most pressing danger to our young people is, and apparently increasingly so, other young people.


Using this logic, we should allow any and all access to any weapon. We should allow children access to C4 explosives and grenade launchers. If 5000 people died in a bombing with a truck loaded with C4 by a delusional nut, we can say "it wasn't the C4 that killed people, it was the nut", while true, it ignores the fact that the access to the C4 greatly increased the casualty count, same as a high capacity semi-auto rifle increases the body count in mass shootings.

The mass shootings negatively impact society well beyond the body count too. It is destroying the psyche of the nation. It cuts directly to our need and want for security. Millions die from heart disease, but that doesn't provide the same shock and trauma a mass shooting does. Psychologically it impacts us all differently than say standard gun crime, and everyone knows what I'm getting at.

They're also already implementing technology to ban the operation of cell phones while the car is running. In 5 years you won't be able to text and drive anymore. It's definitely a problem, with a technical solution.


----------



## john117

Rowan said:


> On average, 11 teens die each and every day in this country at the hands of....cell phones. Yep. Eleven children each day die in accidents caused by someone texting and driving. It's illegal to do in my state, and likely also in yours. And, yet, here we are.
> 
> Have we, as a society, decided that 11 children per day is simply the acceptable price for the freedom to maintain our cell phone access? No one needs a cell phone. They didn't exist for millennia and everyone did just fine. Why are we putting a clearly dangerous item, that no one really needs, into the hands of our young people? It's killing them in droves!
> 
> It's not the cell phones, you say? It's the poor choices young people make with them? Well, yes, that's obviously true. So it must be the cars, then? No one should have cars?
> 
> But if there's a shooting, the gun is the problem? Is that because kids can't figure out how to kill themselves and other people without a firearm? Fascinating.
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, around 403 people have been killed in school shootings since 1980. Yes, that's too many. No, I don't think it's the most pressing danger to our young people today. I think the most pressing danger to our young people is, and apparently increasingly so, other young people.


Not true by a mile.

I help design products for a living and safety analysis is one of the tasks that is done. 

Cellphone or ladder or car or lawn dart deaths are accidents. Cellphones aren't designed to be operated while driving.

A gun killing people is a product functioning exactly as designed.

Recycled NRA argument..


----------



## john117

I've actually thought about consumer grade C4 for home improvement projects.l 

Maybe ask for a grant from the NEA, the National Explosives Association?


----------



## Rhubarb

username77 said:


> Study after study has shown that the 5.56MM round does just as much damage as the larger 7.62 MM round due to its velocity and tumbling after impact, with a much higher maximum effective range. I don't know of any training where the goal was just to injure, it was always aiming centermast and to kill the enemy.


Yeah the often quoted study after study but then again .....


----------



## username77

Rhubarb said:


> Yeah the often quoted study after study but then again ..... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeTtQYyqeDk


We're not made out of watermellon, but flesh and bone that breaks and ricochets.

Also a .223 and 5.56 NATO round aren't the same thing.

No doubt from 20 yards away a 30-.06 will provide more punch, it's why I use one to hunt dear. But that doesn't mean it's "more deadly". 1. It's harder to shoot more accurately 2. it's maximum effective range is much less 3. the velocity on a 5.56mm is consistently higher for a much longer distance.

There's a reason why most western nations use the 5.56mm round, because it's extremely effective at killing people.


----------



## Thor

username77 said:


> .223 Remington and the 5.56mm NATO rounds are not the same thing.
> 
> No one hunts with an AR-15 shooting a 5.56mm round. I've never seen it and I've been hunting since I was 12 across 7 different states. Most states don't allow it because the caliber isn't large enough and it's considered inhumane.
> 
> Anyone trying to sell the AR-15 as a hunting rifle is full of ****.


Go ahead and edumacate me on the difference between 5.56 Nato and .223 Remington. I'm serious. The internet is full of exposes on it, and it comes down to nothing, nada, zero, zilch of any consequence. There is a slight dimension difference in the chamber in the rifle, and the methodology of testing cartridge pressure is different. But it amounts to nothing in the practical world.

You can safely fire either one from either weapon. The internal and terminal ballistics are the same.

M193 is the military designation for 55 gr projectiles.
M855 is the military designation for 62 gr projectiles, aka "green tip"
There are 69 gr and 77 gr projectiles, and a few other less common weights.

All of those are available designated as 5.56 or .223 with the same ballistics.

The 223/5.56 cartridge is becoming more popular for hunting due to greatly improved projectiles. The original military M193 does fragment and is not a good choice for deer or larger. But the new projectiles are greatly improved. Furthermore, the AR-15 is available in many calibers not just 223/5.56 and is indeed a very capable hunting rifle for larger game.


----------



## farsidejunky

arbitrator said:


> *Given this argumentation, the next logical step in the NRA's line of progression would be stinger missles, rocket launchers, and compact nuclear bombs!
> 
> All without a single objection to any background, mental stability, or criminal check and largely without regard to age limitations!
> 
> Our allegiance is not to the NRA ~ it is to our children's welfare, safety, and well-being!*


No, your loyalty is to YOUR VERSION of what YOU FEEL is the solution to the safety of the children.

You are deluded in thinking you possess the moral high ground, and it is the basis you use for the rhetoric you consistently demonstrate over this topic.


----------



## username77

.223 is Remington's standard, the 5.56mm is the military's standards. It's generally accepted that the 5.56mm is required to operate at higher pressure and the internals of the round are different than the .223 while the exterior is identical. It's why a 5.56mm chamber is different than a .223 chamber.

No you should not fire a 5.56mm NATO round out of a chamber labeled only for a .223 round due to excess pressure created. Every rifle manufacture will include this on a .223 chamber due to potential bad things that could happen.


----------



## Thor

Rowan said:


> On average, 11 teens die each and every day in this country at the hands of....cell phones. Yep. Eleven children each day die in accidents caused by someone texting and driving. It's illegal to do in my state, and likely also in yours. And, yet, here we are.
> 
> Have we, as a society, decided that 11 children per day is simply the acceptable price for the freedom to maintain our cell phone access? No one needs a cell phone. They didn't exist for millennia and everyone did just fine. Why are we putting a clearly dangerous item, that no one really needs, into the hands of our young people? It's killing them in droves!
> 
> It's not the cell phones, you say? It's the poor choices young people make with them? Well, yes, that's obviously true. So it must be the cars, then? No one should have cars?
> 
> But if there's a shooting, the gun is the problem? Is that because kids can't figure out how to kill themselves and other people without a firearm? Fascinating.
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, around 403 people have been killed in school shootings since 1980. Yes, that's too many. No, I don't think it's the most pressing danger to our young people today. I think the most pressing danger to our young people is, and apparently increasingly so, other young people.


This is why I believe that at the level of politicians, gun control advocacy groups, the media, and the billionaires funding all of them, that they really don't care about the deaths. If it were about safety then they would care about the most dangerous objects or activities first. And they would take the low hanging fruit, the easy fixes. There are already thousands of gun control laws in place, many of which the government doesn't enforce or fails to enforce competently. Yet some new gun law is magically going to solve the problem?

It would be simple to mandate cell phones have a gps function which disables the data function or even the entire phone once moving more than walking pace. It would be simple to outlaw private residential pools. It would be simple to outlaw skateboards. Yet people literally laugh at those ideas.

Meanwhile we know mental health and psychotropic drugs are involved in almost every single mass shooting. We know almost every mass or school killer illegally obtained their weapon of choice. So far barely mentioned in this latest case is the official school policy of preventing police involvement in any school criminal events, thus shielding troubled youth from consequences and from being identified by authorities as being a problem.

Gun control isn't about the guns, it is about the control.


----------



## Rhubarb

username77 said:


> We're not made out of watermellon, but flesh and bone that breaks and ricochets.
> 
> Also a .223 and 5.56 NATO round aren't the same thing.
> 
> No doubt from 20 yards away a 30-.06 will provide more punch, it's why I use one to hunt dear. But that doesn't mean it's "more deadly". 1. It's harder to shoot more accurately 2. it's maximum effective range is much less 3. the velocity on a 5.56mm is consistently higher for a much longer distance.
> 
> There's a reason why most western nations use the 5.56mm round, because it's extremely effective at killing people.


I don't want to get into this rat-hole argument so since this is TAM let's just agree that if your wife get's mad enough to kill you both rounds will do the job.


----------



## arbitrator

farsidejunky said:


> No, your loyalty is to YOUR VERSION of what YOU FEEL is the solution to the safety of the children.
> 
> You are deluded in thinking you possess the moral high ground, and it is the basis you use for the rhetoric you consistently demonstrate over this topic.


*I'd like to think that it's the very antithesis to the same self-serving rhetoric of non-responsibility purported by those lackeys over at the NRA and their contribution-swilling politicians up on Capitol Hill! *


----------



## Rhubarb

username77 said:


> There is also nothing in 2A guaranteeing that the populace at large has current military grade weapons to kill people with, that is a complete invention by you.
> 
> That's 2A, it says nothing of what you interpreted.


Not really. It specifically states the purpose of the right to bear arms. It is in fact so armed citizens can form a "militia" for provide for "security of a free State". That doesn't mean pocket knives. Your argument is akin to saying freedom of speech doesn't apply the newspapers because they are printed, or the internet because it's just pixels on a screen. The fact is it protects the right to own all sorts of weapons. The courts (who interpret the constitution) have just put some caps on it for public safety. This was deemed necessary because the authors did not envision the weapons we have today. However technically gun laws are unconstitutional.


----------



## Thor

username77 said:


> There is nothing in 2A guaranteeing what type or arms you can bear, when it was written everyone used single shot muzzle loaders. Using your logic any citizen should have unrestricted access to ANY and all military grade weapons to "defend us from tyrranny"?
> 
> There is also nothing in 2A guaranteeing that the populace at large has current military grade weapons to kill people with, that is a complete invention by you.


You need to read what the Founders wrote. The actual guys who wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights including the 2A.

"All the terrible implements of war" will get you started. ******* and Jefferson too.

Note that the 2A does not say muzzle loader. It says "arms". Just as the 1A free speech applies to the internet or television today even though no such technology could be imagined, the 2A applies to all arms. Note that there were in fact automatic weapons already invented at the time of the 2A.

Really you have no idea what the words or phrases mean, nor do you have any knowledge of all the writings and discussions of those who wrote and ratified the 2A. You are spouting the liberal talking points. Go read and do your own research.

It makes no logical sense for those who had just fought for their freedom against a tyrannical government to then limit future generations to no advancement in weaponry for their own defense. Obviously a government would have access to all future technologies, so why would they restrict the population to much inferior weaponry? The militia would be necessary in defense of liberty not just from domestic government, but also from foreign invasion. The Founders would not intend to hobble the militia from effective defense. There was much innovation during the 18th century, so the Founders were well aware that technology was not static.


----------



## As'laDain

john117 said:


> Not true by a mile.
> 
> I help design products for a living and safety analysis is one of the tasks that is done.
> 
> Cellphone or ladder or car or lawn dart deaths are accidents. *Cellphones aren't designed to be operated while driving*.
> 
> A gun killing people is a product functioning exactly as designed.
> 
> Recycled NRA argument..


you are completely wrong about that one. cell phones and their networks have had a lot off effort put into them to ensure that they work perfectly well _while in a moving vehicle_.

why do you think there are large macro towers with directional antennas located along all the major highways?


----------



## Thor

username77 said:


> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
> 
> That's 2A, it says nothing of what you interpreted.


The prefatory clause explains why the operative clause is there. Let's start though with the operative clause which is "The Right of the People, To Keep and Bear Arms, Shall Not be Infringed".

Who has this right? _The People_. Not the government, not the National Guard, and not any other institution (such as an organized militia). Consistently and logically throughout the Constitution and Bill of Rights we see that rights belong to individual persons.

What is the right? _To Keep and Bear Arms_. Keeping means possessing. Bearing means carrying. Arms means weapons. At the time of the Revolution, private individuals owned artillery, warships, swords, firearms, etc. Arms is a generic word, non-specific. This has nothing to do with hunting or target shooting, it has to do with lethal combat. Bearing is not restricted to location, such as one's home. In fact it would be odd to "bear" arms within one's home, but it would be a normal thing to "bear" arms while outside of the home. Thus the right is for individuals to own and possess objects suitable for use as weapons.

What is the restriction placed on the government? _The right shall not be *infringed*_. The meaning of the word _infringe_ has not changed since 1789. It means to dabble around the edges, to in any way encroach upon. It does not mean largely or totally remove! The government is prohibited from touching even the edges of the right to own or possess weapons suitable for lethal combat.

Now to the prefatory clause. This clause does not modify or reduce the operative clause, it merely explains why this amendment is here.

What is Well Regulated? It means _well or smoothly functioning_. In terms of the militia it means well armed and skilled. Regulated does not mean controlled by government rules. This definition still exists today, such as regulating a mechanical device (adjusting it to operate well).

What is the Militia? It is _all the people_. It is not the National Guard. There is the organized militia and the un-organized militia. Every adult is a member of the unorganized militia by default.

What does it mean to be necessary to the security of a free state? The Founders knew that any government will seek to expand power, and individuals within government are like all humans subject to becoming oppressive of those they have power over. No population can remain free with an unrestrained government. Furthermore, defense of community from outside invasion will require local defending forces.

A *right* is something that exists by virtue of being alive. Every individual has the right to not be enslaved, for example. Contrasted to a privilege which is something bestowed by an authority (e.g. drivers license). Each individual has the right to defend his liberties, and thus has the right to effective tools for that purpose.

Thus the meaning of the 2A is that the government is forbidden any restriction on a person's natural pre-existing human right to own and possess weaponry suitable to lethal combat in defense of his personal and community's liberty.


----------



## john117

How does the cellphone know it's held by a passenger or driver?

Our regulations hating conservatives at work I suppose


----------



## Steve1000

Sawney Beane said:


> I normally stay out of these discussions, but I wonder if somebody can enlighten me.
> 
> From over here, there seems to be a view in America that when compared to the threat of the federal government rocking up to oppress the American people, that the deaths of a few dozen children per year is an acceptable loss. That the price of freedom isn't eternal vigilance, but eternal vigilance and some schoolkids. Nobody comes out and says so in so many words, but that seems to be the bottom line.
> 
> Is this actually the way this is considered?


According to several polls, including Gallop, the majority of Americans prefer tighter gun control, especially related to semi-automatic rifles and background checks. However, it has only been a preference, not a priority. Therefore when people vote, other issues have a bigger priority. After all, most people don't empathize with something very strongly unless it hits them personally.


----------



## Thor

username77 said:


> Using this logic, we should allow any and all access to any weapon.


We already do, and rightfully so, prohibit convicted felons and the adjudicated mentally ill from possessing firearms. Federal law also prohibits substance abusers from possessing firearms.

The 5th Amendment provides for the removal of rights upon due process. Those people have had their day in court. Aside from that, the government has no right to prevent you from exercising any of your rights.


----------



## john117

As'laDain said:


> you are completely wrong about that one. cell phones and their networks have had a lot off effort put into them to ensure that they work perfectly _well while in a moving vehicle_.
> 
> why do you think there are large macro towers with directional antennas located along all the major highways?


I meant, operated by the driver... As smart phones, not Jitterbugs.


----------



## Thor

username77 said:


> The mass shootings negatively impact society well beyond the body count too. It is destroying the psyche of the nation. It cuts directly to our need and want for security. Millions die from heart disease, but that doesn't provide the same shock and trauma a mass shooting does. Psychologically it impacts us all differently than say standard gun crime, and everyone knows what I'm getting at.


I'm glad you brought this up because mass shootings are a tiny fraction of murders, and an even tinier portion of all violent crime. Yet in our national psyche it seems the biggest threat to life and limb.

Why is that? Could it be the mass media is whipping up emotions? Could it be foreign and domestic billionaires see an opportunity to push their political agendas? Could it be politicians are making sure a good crisis doesn't go to waste?

Maybe we need a law prohibiting the media from publishing or broadcasting more than one story per day, and only if it contains new information from the previous story. We should prohibit publication or broadcast of the perp's name. We know these mass killers are seeking publicity. Take that away from them and the mass shootings will end.

If the media spent as much time on regular homicides and other violent crimes proportionally, the nation would have an entirely different view and reaction.


----------



## As'laDain

john117 said:


> I meant, operated by the driver... As smart phones, not Jitterbugs.


so there arent people who use wayz, google maps, and other such navigation software while driving? and modern smartphones werent designed with the ability to recieve calls through bluetooth, allowing the driver to hear the person he is talking to through his cars stereo, while driving into work? text to voice, voice to text?

the networks themselves were designed with such features in mind.


----------



## Thor

username77 said:


> .223 is Remington's standard, the 5.56mm is the military's standards. It's generally accepted that the 5.56mm is required to operate at higher pressure and the internals of the round are different than the .223 while the exterior is identical. It's why a 5.56mm chamber is different than a .223 chamber.
> 
> No you should not fire a 5.56mm NATO round out of a chamber labeled only for a .223 round due to excess pressure created. Every rifle manufacture will include this on a .223 chamber due to potential bad things that could happen.


Here's just one article. https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/5-56-vs-223/

I don't know why we even got into this discussion about the differences, but from a practical standpoint they are identical. If you have a bargain basement .223 barrel with a tight chamber (below spec), then yeah you might have a problem with the marginally higher 5.56 pressure if in fact the ammunition was loaded to full spec. Ammo manufacturers derate their loads to be sure to stay below the spec maximum, thus avoiding law suits.


----------



## As'laDain

Thor said:


> This is why I believe that at the level of politicians, gun control advocacy groups, the media, and the billionaires funding all of them, that they really don't care about the deaths. If it were about safety then they would care about the most dangerous objects or activities first. And they would take the low hanging fruit, the easy fixes. There are already thousands of gun control laws in place, many of which the government doesn't enforce or fails to enforce competently. Yet some new gun law is magically going to solve the problem?
> 
> *It would be simple to mandate cell phones have a gps function which disables the data function or even the entire phone once moving more than walking pace*. It would be simple to outlaw private residential pools. It would be simple to outlaw skateboards. Yet people literally laugh at those ideas.
> 
> *Meanwhile we know mental health and psychotropic drugs are involved in almost every single mass shooting. We know almost every mass or school killer illegally obtained their weapon of choice. So far barely mentioned in this latest case is the official school policy of preventing police involvement in any school criminal events, thus shielding troubled youth from consequences and from being identified by authorities as being a problem.*
> 
> Gun control isn't about the guns, it is about the control.



to the first bolded point, no it wouldn't. trying to enforce such a law would be an absolute nightmare.

to the second, growing up without a father has a stronger correlation than psychotropic drugs. but nobody seems to care about what we can do to help and encourage fathers to remain in their childrens lives. in america, the focus seems to be the opposite.


----------



## Steve1000

Rhubarb said:


> Not really. It specifically states the purpose of the right to bear arms. It is in fact so armed citizens can form a "militia" for provide for "security of a free State". That doesn't mean pocket knives. Your argument is akin to saying freedom of speech doesn't apply the newspapers because they are printed, or the internet because it's just pixels on a screen. The fact is it protects the right to own all sorts of weapons. The courts (who interpret the constitution) have just put some caps on it for public safety. This was deemed necessary because the authors did not envision the weapons we have today. However technically gun laws are unconstitutional.


Unless we are in a well-regulated militia, I don't agree that that argument holds up.


----------



## username77

Rhubarb said:


> Not really. It specifically states the purpose of the right to bear arms. It is in fact so armed citizens can form a "militia" for provide for "security of a free State".


One could also interpret it to mean that citizens can keep and bear arms only for the purpose of forming a well formed militia like the National Guard, and not just to play ******* Rambo. During the time of the writing of the 2A, the rifle someone had in their home is the one they would take into battle if called into a militia and it would be routinely inspected for serviceability by the local militia hierarchy. 

Things are obviously totally different now and arming the populace with military grade weapons like mortars, grenades, tanks, etc... would be insane. Why are assault rifles different? No one said that you can't own a hunting rifle or shotgun, maybe some higher grade weapons could be made available but only for a "well regulated militia as determined by the state". And like the military, those are kept locked in an armory under all circumstances except patrol and training. There is no guarantee to the same weaponry as the federally regulated Armed Forces in 2A to individual people.

The constitution isn't just a set of words, it's how they're interpreted by the highest law in our land, the Supreme Court. Federal courts have upheld bans on magazine sizes, in certain spaces, etc... The same way the 1st Amendment doesn't protect against perjury, fraud, or yelling fire in a crowded place to cause a panic. 2A doesn't guarantee unfettered access to all weaponry.


----------



## john117

As'laDain said:


> so there arent people who use wayz, google maps, and other such navigation software while driving? and modern smartphones werent designed with the ability to recieve calls through bluetooth, allowing the driver to hear the person he is talking to through his cars stereo, while driving into work? text to voice, voice to text?
> 
> the networks themselves were designed with such features in mind.


With limited functionality or not at all. I use Waze daily and it locks out much of the app. 

I've designed stuff for the transportation sector and all these are standard fare. 

Bluetooth etc are all ways to not use eyes and hands on the screen. 

As intended, a smartphone is not designed to be operated by a driver. That's where Android Auto, Apple CarPlay etc come in.

With proper training and expensively designed and built systems you can operate far more complicated stuff while driving - say an attack helicopter  - but not your iPhone.

Look up "Mental Workload" it's a lot of what we do at the lab.


----------



## As'laDain

john117 said:


> With limited functionality or not at all. I use Waze daily and it locks out much of the app.
> 
> I've designed stuff for the transportation sector and all these are standard fare.
> 
> Bluetooth etc are all ways to not use eyes and hands on the screen.
> 
> As intended, a smartphone is not designed to be operated by a driver. That's where Android Auto, Apple CarPlay etc come in.
> 
> With proper training and expensively designed and built systems you can operate far more complicated stuff while driving - say an attack helicopter  - but not your iPhone.
> 
> Look up "Mental Workload" it's a lot of what we do at the lab.


funny that you mention proper training... 

i have actually been through courses that teach you how to text and drive at the same time. even while under NOD's. sometimes i wonder if states that allow texting and driving should require a class attendance on the topic before issuing licenses. but then again, i wonder if it would make any difference. 

but regardless, its up to the end user to decide how to use them, but my point still stands. they were designed with the ability to be operated while driving in mind. even down to the way modern network technologies have the towers themselves allocating RF resources to maintain seamless transitions with no noticeable change in data flow.

just because the don't tell the user to use it while driving doesn't mean they weren't designed to be able to be used while driving.


----------



## Thor

username77 said:


> The constitution isn't just a set of words, it's how they're interpreted by the highest law in our land, the Supreme Court. Federal courts have upheld bans on magazine sizes, in certain spaces, etc... The same way the 1st Amendment doesn't protect against perjury, fraud, or yelling fire in a crowded place to cause a panic. 2A doesn't guarantee unfettered access to all weaponry.


Do you believe a law means what it says? That a law is unchangeable in meaning until the law itself is changed? If there is ambiguity in a law or a disagreement on meaning, should one look to the writings and discussions of those who wrote the law to determine original intent? When the original intent and plain language meaning is understood, that meaning then remains constant over time.

Or do you believe a law rightfully only means what the current court decides it should mean? That the original intent and clear plain language meaning of the law does not matter.

As an example, let's imagine a state law that says simply that it is illegal to park a motor vehicle on a public road during a snow emergency declared by the Governor of the state. There is some penalty specified for violation. All the writings, discussions, and other evidence shows the legislators intended no specific depth of snow, or even any actual snow fall, to be required. It is entirely the Governor's discretion when to declare a snow emergency.

Now let's imagine a motor vehicle owner who parks his car on a public road during a major snow event. Several feet of snow falls. But the Governor never declares a snow emergency.

Is it a morally acceptable outcome for the court to decide the vehicle owner is guilty because of the depth of snow even though no snow emergency declaration was made? Or do you believe the court is prohibited from finding the vehicle owner guilty because the clear words and verifiable original intent inform us there was no violation of law?

To your remarks on magazine capacity, you are clearly agreeing with the concept of a court finding the vehicle owner guilty even though that was not what the law says. The 2A clearly says "Shall Not Be Infringed". Yet banning firearms is more than an infringement! Any level of research into original meaning of the words and original intent of those who wrote and ratified the 2A will show there is no ambiguity.

Now to your 1A remarks. Is it currently legal to use a gun to commit armed robbery or murder? No, of course not, just as it is currently illegal to harm someone via speech. Private citizens with no intent to harm someone via speech have full freedom to speak. They can even yell Fire! in a crowded theater if they believe there is a fire. It is illegal to intentionally attempt to harm someone whether it by via fraud or inciting panic, just as it is illegal to harm via armed robbery or murder.

So your examples actually reinforce that lawful gun ownership should not be restricted for uses not harming others. Unless and until someone commits the gun equivalent of fraud or inciting panic with speech, their freedom to keep and bear arms should not be restricted.


----------



## Rowan

john117 said:


> Recycled NRA argument..


I bet it would blow your mind to know that I'm a university educated professional woman in a STEM field who's voted Democrat more often than Republican and has never, to the best of my knowledge, read or heard anything that I was aware was published or produced by the NRA. Certainly not on purpose. I don't watch Fox News or listen to conservative radio. I'm not even a Christian, and have never been accused of being particularly conservative. In short, I'm not the gun nut you're looking for. 

Just because I can logically see that guns are not killing as many people in this country as a number of other things are, and therefore think we'd probably be better off to focus on more dangerous threats first, doesn't mean I'm am some fanatical guns-rights activist. It does mean that I'd really like a more logical approach, or at least more honesty about what we're trying to accomplish, from my public policy measures. If guns are still a huge problem after all the other, _more lethal and more common_, dangers to children are resolved, then I'd be all for re-thinking the constitutionality of private ownership. But I think we're a long way from there. 

In reality, if we were actually concerned about preventing deaths or saving children, we'd be talking not about guns but about ways to reduce the infant mortality rate, end child hunger, solve the gang problem, or eliminate the opiod epidemic. But I get it, scary looking black guns make for better visuals. It's tough put generational poverty or destruction of the nuclear family on posters.

Thanks for being dismissive, though.


----------



## Rhubarb

Steve1000 said:


> Unless we are in a well-regulated militia, I don't agree that that argument holds up.


You don't understand what a militia is. It is in fact a group of citizens with guns that where gathered together when needed. This is exactly how it was during the revolutionary war. Militias were NOT the army. Remember the continental army from history class? That was the army. They were separate. Furthermore you are ignoring the exact wording. 

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

This is like saying:

"Barking dogs being a nuisance to the community, dogs are prohibited in this park."

The second part is not dependent on the first. For instance if your dog doesn't bark it's still prohibited. The first part only gives the reason for the law. Let's try another. 

"As we feared the storm would hit the coast, we left early in the morning for the mountains"

Again the second phrase is the action, the first is the reason for the action. However if it turns out the storm never hits the coast you still left for the mountains. This is basic English grammar. Likewise if you never need to form a militia "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is still granted. This only makes sense because unless people already had guns and knew hot to use them, it would be much harder to form a militia. Also notice it says "people". Everywhere in the constitution people means citizenry. Now suddenly in this one spot it's like you want it to mean the government. 

If you want to claim the reasoning behind the 2nd is archaic, that's one thing. However. realize that the law is still in place and it takes an amendment the change that.


----------



## Rhubarb

username77 said:


> One could also interpret it to mean that citizens can keep and bear arms only for the purpose of forming a well formed militia like the National Guard, and not just to play ******* Rambo. During the time of the writing of the 2A, the rifle someone had in their home is the one they would take into battle if called into a militia and it would be routinely inspected for serviceability by the local militia hierarchy.


Where did you ever get the idea that it was routinely inspected by the government? You have a source for that because I have never heard that in my life. A militia was not the army. Both existed separately. 



username77 said:


> Things are obviously totally different now and arming the populace with military grade weapons like mortars, grenades, tanks, etc... would be insane. Why are assault rifles different? No one said that you can't own a hunting rifle or shotgun, maybe some higher grade weapons could be made available but only for a "well regulated militia as determined by the state". And like the military, those are kept locked in an armory under all circumstances except patrol and training. There is no guarantee to the same weaponry as the federally regulated Armed Forces in 2A to individual people.


This is the crux of the problem. If you want to make the case the the 2nd amendment is outdated you should make that case and lobby for it's repeal. But you are tying to play this middle game. We are talking about the constitution. It is the highest law in the land. You don't get the change that on a whim. There is a process for that. Use it. The only other option is to hope the Supreme Court is friendly to your cause because no matter what the constitution actually says, they can interpret it any way they like. Really, that's what you are asking because any law they deem unconstitutional they can overturn. Technically all gun laws are unconstitutional but as it stand they turn a blind eye to many many of them ostensibly for public safety. This push and pull always goes on and will go on until someone can get the amendment changed. 



username77 said:


> The constitution isn't just a set of words, it's how they're interpreted by the highest law in our land, the Supreme Court. Federal courts have upheld bans on magazine sizes, in certain spaces, etc... The same way the 1st Amendment doesn't protect against perjury, fraud, or yelling fire in a crowded place to cause a panic. 2A doesn't guarantee unfettered access to all weaponry.


However at the same the they have overturned gun laws too. Again this game will go on and on, until the votes are there to repeal the amendment. However as it stands all it takes is 13 red states to block a repeal.


----------



## Machjo

...


----------



## Wolf1974

Rowan said:


> I bet it would blow your mind to know that I'm a university educated professional woman in a STEM field who's voted Democrat more often than Republican and has never, to the best of my knowledge, read or heard anything that I was aware was published or produced by the NRA. Certainly not on purpose. I don't watch Fox News or listen to conservative radio. I'm not even a Christian, and have never been accused of being particularly conservative. In short, I'm not the gun nut you're looking for.
> 
> Just because I can logically see that guns are not killing as many people in this country as a number of other things are, and therefore think we'd probably be better off to focus on more dangerous threats first, doesn't mean I'm am some fanatical guns-rights activist. It does mean that I'd really like a more logical approach, or at least more honesty about what we're trying to accomplish, from my public policy measures. If guns are still a huge problem after all the other, _more lethal and more common_, dangers to children are resolved, then I'd be all for re-thinking the constitutionality of private ownership. But I think we're a long way from there.
> 
> In reality, if we were actually concerned about preventing deaths or saving children, we'd be talking not about guns but about ways to reduce the infant mortality rate, end child hunger, solve the gang problem, or eliminate the opiod epidemic. But I get it, scary looking black guns make for better visuals. It's tough put generational poverty or destruction of the nuclear family on posters.
> 
> Thanks for being dismissive, though.


Not only this but so long as people focus on guns and not real solutions shootings at churches, schools , malls and other soft targets are just going to keep happening. It astounds me that any person could think that if you take away a rifle that shootings just stop. Nope just another gun, car missile, bomb takes its place. Unreal


----------



## username77

I was in the Marines for 5 years. We trained extensively on handling, shooting, cleaning, and basically knowing every inch of the M-16 A2 rifle (only real difference from an AR-15 type rifle is 3 round burst). By the end of boot camp I could hit a 6 inch group from 500 yards with an iron front site post and a rear site aperture (no scope) and a 2 inch group from 200 yards. if you can qualify on the KD course you're a good shot, if you can shoot expert you're an exceptional shot.

I think people envision Marine's roaming with their rifles and live rounds, drinking and playing cards with them sitting in their lap, but in reality we had very limited access to our weapons outside of drilling (no bullets available to us) war, and the range (on the range every bullet is counted and accounted for). They sat locked in the armory, and this was for highly trained soldiers and Marines with hundreds of hours training on the rifle.

In the civilian sector a maladjusted socially retarded 18 year old kid with the emotional maturity of a 9 year old can buy an AR-15 having never handled a weapon in any way and 10 boxes of 5.56 NATO ammo. Think about that, and think if that makes sense.


----------



## john117

Wolf1974 said:


> Not only this but so long as people focus on guns and not real solutions shootings at churches, schools , malls and other soft targets are just going to keep happening. It astounds me that any person could think that if you take away a rifle that shootings just stop. Nope just another gun, car missile, bomb takes its place. Unreal


Well...

Last I checked Walmart doesn't carry the other items mentioned. Maybe Sam's Club?

Rowan should summon the critical thinking fairy regarding her suggested triage of death causes.

See, to reduce infant mortality or childhood disease or heart disease takes REAL MONEY. Money that us progressives love to spend like there's no tomorrow. But do you really believe some red state dude will agree to pay tax money to vaccinate someone's kid? Improve the - gasp - social safety net?

There are always costs and benefits. Forbes, the bastion of liberal media, said...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/abramb...cost-every-american-564-in-2010/#c3b84194871a

Is it true? No idea. But there are costs. Lots. Money we could be spending elsewhere.

To be honest there's way too many guns in circulation now to do anything. Other than via North Korea style enforcement, the rights of people are safe.


----------



## Wolf1974

john117 said:


> Well...
> 
> Last I checked Walmart doesn't carry the other items mentioned. Maybe Sam's Club?
> 
> Rowan should summon the critical thinking fairy regarding her suggested triage of death causes.
> 
> See, to reduce infant mortality or childhood disease or heart disease takes REAL MONEY. Money that us progressives love to spend like there's no tomorrow. But do you really believe some red state dude will agree to pay tax money to vaccinate someone's kid? Improve the - gasp - social safety net?
> 
> There are always costs and benefits. Forbes, the bastion of liberal media, said...
> 
> https://www.forbes.com/sites/abramb...cost-every-american-564-in-2010/#c3b84194871a
> 
> Is it true? No idea. But there are costs. Lots. Money we could be spending elsewhere.
> 
> To be honest there's way too many guns in circulation now to do anything. Other than via North Korea style enforcement, the rights of people are safe.


Actually wal-mart does carry other guns, does carry homemade chemicals to make bombs, does carry other weapons.....so what exactly if anything was your point?


----------



## arbitrator

Wolf1974 said:


> Actually Wal-mart does carry other guns, does carry homemade chemicals to make bombs, does carry other weapons.....so what exactly if anything was your point?


*I think that John's point was that the four common denominators in all of these abhorrent school, church, and street mass-shootings are: (1) the presence of easily procured military type weaponry, (2) deranged people, (3) an organization whose leadership steadfastly refuses to advocate age limitations or extensive background checks on anyone who wishes to purchase one, all under their emotionally-skewed interpretations of the Second Amendment, and (4) the state and federal legislators who ardently place receiving multi-millions in political contributions and other perks from said organization much higher than their legislative acumen to pass laws even anywhere close to being against the wishes of that organization!

All of the mass-murdered had rights, too, you know!

The surviving parents and children all demand to know: Exactly whose rights trumps whose?*


----------



## john117

Thank you Arb for expressing my sentiments exactly... 

Guns are not the issue. My birth country has military weapons in every house plus hunting rifles. We don't massacre each other.

If all the pro gun "activists" actually experienced the kind of environment where a gun is designed to work in (*), say, a war, they might be a bit more reluctant to support broad availability of weapons stateside. 

(*) Meaning the kind of war where the other side actually shoots back, organized conflict, not the asymetrical warfare we've been seeing.

But it's too late now. The NRA had their chance to support meaningful limitations while helping expand gun ownership for sport (witness the success of high end upscale indoor gun ranges) but chose to pander to the extremist faction as always.


----------



## Wolf1974

arbitrator said:


> *I think that John's point was that the four common denominators in all of these abhorrent school, church, and street mass-shootings are: (1) the presence of easily procured military type weaponry, (2) deranged people, (3) an organization whose leadership steadfastly refuses to advocate age limitations or extensive background checks on anyone who wishes to purchase one, all under their emotionally-skewed interpretations of the Second Amendment, and (4) the state and federal legislators who ardently place receiving multi-millions in political contributions and other perks from said organization much higher than their legislative acumen to pass laws even anywhere close to being against the wishes of that organization!
> 
> All of the mass-murdered had rights, too, you know!
> 
> The surviving parents and children all demand to know: Exactly whose rights trumps whose?*


If those were his “points” he missed a few things then including the largest one which is the reason schools and churches are targeted. They are wide open targets. If we all ageee that any meaningful gun control for this country as come and gone then we can look at real solutions to prevent and not the rehrotic about the second amendment.

If you advocate for the limitations of certain guns or make them harder to obtain ok cool. I mean we already have gun free zones and drug free zones in schools and both of those are working out well. No criminal ever has obained a weapon illegally so that also fixes that I suppose. Gun laws and limitations only affect those who follow the laws. While I agree the common man doesn’t need an fully automatic machine gun ANYONE who thinks making guns have more regulations eliminates the ability to obtain them illegally isn’t paying attention in this country.

You do hit on an area where real change does need to occur and that’s with the “deranged” as you called them. This country is so focused now on individual rights that they are more important than everyone else’s rights. This goes hand in hand with the embarrassing assumption that “crazy” must equal stupid. It doesn’t because in these mass shootings you find planning, execution, tactics. You don’t see them walk into my police station because they wouldn’t last 5 second against those who fight back. So they go someplace they can easily get into where no one else can stop them.

As a cop I have no recourse to deal with these people. Because of the rights they have I don’t have the ability to do anything with them even if they make credible threats. Maybe a ticket and release and hey hope you don’t follow through on your plans :|. This would also be time much better spent fixing that than debating if I have the right to have a gun or not. But so long as we debate an amendment and not the prevention of these they are going to keep happening.


----------



## As'laDain

john117 said:


> Thank you Arb for expressing my sentiments exactly...
> 
> Guns are not the issue. My birth country has military weapons in every house plus hunting rifles. We don't massacre each other.
> 
> *If all the pro gun "activists" actually experienced the kind of environment where a gun is designed to work in (*), say, a war, they might be a bit more reluctant to support broad availability of weapons stateside. *
> 
> *(*) Meaning the kind of war where the other side actually shoots back, organized conflict, not the asymetrical warfare we've been seeing.*
> 
> But it's too late now. The NRA had their chance to support meaningful limitations while helping expand gun ownership for sport (witness the success of high end upscale indoor gun ranges) but chose to pander to the extremist faction as always.


what kind of wars do you think we have been fighting? i have been through a few where the enemy shoots back(actually, they usually shoot first. _we_ shoot back). i still like having the right to buy whatever semiautomatic weapon i want.


----------



## arbitrator

As'laDain said:


> what kind of wars do you think we have been fighting? i have been through a few where the enemy shoots back(actually, they usually shoot first. _we_ shoot back). *I still like having the right to buy whatever semiautomatic weapon I want.*


*...as do the mentally deranged who at present, has unfettered access to buying them with a minimum of trouble, largely without regard to age, mental competency, or in some cases, even criminality!*


----------



## EllisRedding

I wonder, how would this discussion change if the gun the terrorist used had been obtained illegally?


----------



## john117

As'laDain said:


> what kind of wars do you think we have been fighting? i have been through a few where the enemy shoots back(actually, they usually shoot first. _we_ shoot back). i still like having the right to buy whatever semiautomatic weapon i want.


Asymetrical warfare isn't any easier - it's harder in most aspects - but i don't believe for a moment that ideology aside, anyone would want to allow access to such weapons to the civilian market based on constitutionally valid but practically off the chart arguments.


----------



## Wolf1974

EllisRedding said:


> I wonder, how would this discussion change if the gun the terrorist used had been obtained illegally?


It doesn’t. The guns used in Sandy Hook weren’t Lanza’s and that’s just one example. Still they focus on the guns and not the prevention of the crime.

Also when people can legally qualify to buy firearms doesn’t mean they always stay qualified which is also a huge burden. So what I’m saying is a 25 year old can purchase guns. At 30 develop a mental illness and no longer qualify to keep those guns but who will keep checks and enforce that? This is again why regulations on guns or increasing age to purchase does nothing. People change.


----------



## Steve1000

Rhubarb said:


> If you want to claim the reasoning behind the 2nd is archaic, that's one thing. However. realize that the law is still in place and it takes an amendment the change that.


Yes, the 2nd amendment is still in place and I think that it should stay in place. However, realize that there have been limitations to those freedoms for longer than we've been alive. Fully automatic machine guns and rocket launchers are already both illegal to possess. How does that happen with the 2nd amendment? In my opinion, some semi-automatic rifles should be added to that list such as the AK47 and the AR15. We might have different opinions about that, but I will assume that we both arrived at our opinions with good intentions in mind.


----------



## As'laDain

john117 said:


> Asymetrical warfare isn't any easier - it's harder in most aspects - but i don't believe for a moment that ideology aside, anyone would want to allow access to such weapons to the civilian market based on constitutionally valid but practically off the chart arguments.


what such weapons are you talking about here? semiautomatic rifles like the AR-15?


----------



## Rhubarb

Steve1000 said:


> . Fully automatic machine guns and rocket launchers are already both illegal to possess. How does that happen with the 2nd amendment?


I think I've explained that several times now. In short the supreme court overrides the constitution. That may not be the way it was supposed to work but in reality that's how it works. 



Steve1000 said:


> In my opinion, some semi-automatic rifles should be added to that list such as the AK47 and the AR15. We might have different opinions about that, but I will assume that we both arrived at our opinions with good intentions in mind.


Well some people might say you should draw the line at knives, and other's might say at single shot rifles. So go lobby those 9 guys in power. Personally I hate fuzzy laws that are at the whim of how a few guys happen to feel. That's really my main complaint, but in fact that's the US system.


----------



## john117

As'laDain said:


> what such weapons are you talking about here? semiautomatic rifles like the AR-15?


Given the creativity and availability of skills for modding there's no point thinking there's a vast difference between a semiautomatic and a fully automatic anything.

Technically there are differences obviously but does it matter?


----------



## arbitrator

Steve1000 said:


> Yes, the 2nd amendment is still in place and I think that it should stay in place. However, realize that there have been limitations to those freedoms for longer than we've been alive. Fully automatic machine guns and rocket launchers are already both illegal to possess. How does that happen with the 2nd amendment? In my opinion, some semi-automatic rifles should be added to that list such as the AK47 and the AR15. We might have different opinions about that, but I will assume that we both arrived at our opinions with good intentions in mind.


*Steve: Even I believe that the Second Amendment should remain in place, but I think that a test case, if possible, should go before the full SCOTUS for a more logical interpretation of assault and automatic weapons usage, and of the full legality of background, criminal, and mental health checks.

In addition, I believe that a buyer and possessor of firearms should be required to pay for and maintain liability insurance as well as physical proficiency tests on his weapon in order to be able to keep it! If most all states require it for automobiles, why then shouldn't firearms follow suit?*


----------



## farsidejunky

*Re: A letter to the boys &amp; young men of America*



arbitrator said:


> *Steve: Even I believe that the Second Amendment should remain in place, but I think that a test case, if possible, should go before the full SCOTUS for a more logical interpretation of assault and automatic weapons usage, and of the full legality of background, criminal, and mental health checks.
> 
> In addition, I believe that a buyer and possessor of firearms should be required to pay for and maintain liability insurance as well as physical proficiency tests on his weapon in order to be able to keep it! If most all states require it for automobiles, why then shouldn't firearms follow suit?*


Your second paragraph is interesting, Arb.

I'm normally pretty hard on you over your rhetoric. But this has me legitimately interested because I have never heard the argument.

What do you think the intended and unintended consequences of liability insurance for gun owners would accomplish? 

What sort of penalties would one incur if their weapon was used by them to commit a crime?

What about if their weapon was used by another for a crime?


----------



## username77

arbitrator said:


> *In addition, I believe that a buyer and possessor of firearms should be required to pay for and maintain liability insurance as well as physical proficiency tests on his weapon in order to be able to keep it! If most all states require it for automobiles, why then shouldn't firearms follow suit?*


I don't disagree with you, but the counter-argument to that is "driving isn't a guaranteed right in the constitution, it's a privilege".

I definitely think if someone sells a weapon, even privately to someone who is mentally unfit, not proficient, or a felon, they should be personal liable for any damage that gun does in the future and need to maintain an insurance policy for the weapons.

Taking an exam and live fire to show proficiency with the weapon should be a no-brainer. I don't know why anyone would be against that.


----------



## Wolf1974

username77 said:


> I don't disagree with you, but the counter-argument to that is "driving isn't a guaranteed right in the constitution, it's a privilege".
> 
> I definitely think if someone sells a weapon, even privately to someone who is mentally unfit, not proficient, or a felon, they should be personal liable for any damage that gun does in the future and need to maintain an insurance policy for the weapons.
> 
> *Taking an exam and live fire to show proficiency with the weapon should be a no-brainer. I don't know why anyone would be against that.*


So wait a second now. So you sell a gun to someone and they use it in the commission of a crime years from now you want that original person to held responsible. No where else in law does that take place. If I sell a car and that person runs over someone in no way should I be held accountable for that :surprise:


As to the second statement bolded it depends on what you’re talking. If you mean to carry a concealed weapon you should be required to take a class, exam, and fire it with an instructor I agree and that is already the case in Colorado. I actually throught that was universal for everywhere but maybe that is different from state to state. 

However for an everyday citizen who buys one for home self dense only, nope I would never agree to that. When I taught classes on this I always told them they should train and fire any weapon they buy. however most wont nor will they ever use it statistically. But for home defense situations where shootings are going to occur in 10 yards or less you can just point and shoot without any training and hit. You also don’t have the liability and shoot don’t shoot scenarios like someone carrying concealed in public. So I would never be for mandatory exams, classrooms or live fire for those wanting a weapon for self defense of their home.


----------



## Steve1000

arbitrator said:


> *Steve: Even I believe that the Second Amendment should remain in place, but I think that a test case, if possible, should go before the full SCOTUS for a more logical interpretation of assault and automatic weapons usage, and of the full legality of background, criminal, and mental health checks.
> 
> In addition, I believe that a buyer and possessor of firearms should be required to pay for and maintain liability insurance as well as physical proficiency tests on his weapon in order to be able to keep it! If most all states require it for automobiles, why then shouldn't firearms follow suit?*


I like your premise, but as username pointed out, those who support the NRA's stance can rightfully remind us that the Bill of Rights does not venture into the right to own a vehicle. Another problem that would need clarifying is that it is not illegal to own a car without insurance, you just can't use a car without insurance.


----------



## username77

Wolf1974 said:


> So wait a second now. So you sell a gun to someone and they use it in the commission of a crime years from now you want that original person to held responsible.


This is what I originally wrote:

"I definitely think if someone sells a weapon, even privately to someone who is *mentally unfit, not proficient, or a felon*, they should be personal liable "

And yes, I do think they should be held liable if they sell to a 3 time felon and that felon murders someone, they can be sued for damages. Background checks should be mandatory even for private sales.


----------



## EllisRedding

username77 said:


> This is what I originally wrote:
> 
> "I definitely think if someone sells a weapon, even privately to someone who is *mentally unfit, not proficient, or a felon*, they should be personal liable "
> 
> And yes, I do think they should be held liable if they sell to a 3 time felon and that felon murders someone, they can be sued for damages. Background checks should be mandatory even for private sales.


What happens if you sell a car to someone who has had 3 DUIs. They go out, drive drunk, and kill someone. Should the original owner of the car be held liable?


----------



## arbitrator

Steve1000 said:


> I like your premise, but as username pointed out, those who support the NRA's stance can rightfully remind us that the Bill of Rights does not venture into the right to own a vehicle. Another problem that would need clarifying is that it is not illegal to own a car without insurance, you just can't use a car without insurance.


*And what's remotely wrong with having to have and perpetually maintain liability insurance in being able to own and maintain that ownership of a firearm? Without the insurance, if an innocent or wrongful person is shot, who picks up their hospital bills or funeral costs?

Wouldn't liability insurance not be a form of responsibility for the gun owner?*


----------



## Windwalker

john117 said:


> Given the creativity and availability of skills for modding there's no point thinking there's a vast difference between a semiautomatic and a fully automatic anything.
> 
> Technically there are differences obviously but does it matter?


Lol. I won't get an answer, but please do enlighten me on the last time a fully automatic weapon was used in the commission of a murder. Hell, when was the last one used in a crime at all? 

I'm not talking about those retarded ass bump stocks either. They are a gimmick. The are prone to jamming the gun. Even proficient users jam guns left and right with them. And all the grand standing over them is just that, grandstanding. All the ATF has to do is declare them a NFA item and they then require a special tax stamp to legally own. No president, no congress, just the ATF. Hell do the world a favor and outright ban the damn things all together..



arbitrator said:


> *If most all states require it for automobiles, why then shouldn't firearms follow suit?*


Honest question here. If you want these requirements for gun owners, the why in the hell are you setting the bar so low? I travel for a living and have covered most of the lower 48. If there is one absolute truth in this country, it's the fact that the bar for getting and maintaining a driver's license is way to low. The sheer incompetence of drivers on the road is mind boggling. Factor in the fact that many states have went for longer renewal periods in the last 10-15 years and that's a might damn low bar. Talk about mailing it in, which you can literally do in some states, WTF? 

https://drivinglaws.aaa.com/tag/drivers-license-renewal/

And dont even get me started on the vehicle requirements of said incompetent drivers. Hell, some states don't even require a state vehicle inspection to renew tags. 

On the other hand, yes let's use those standards. Nothing much will change. 



username77 said:


> I definitely think if someone sells a weapon, even privately to someone who is mentally unfit, not proficient, or a felon, they should be personal liable for any damage that gun does in the future and need to maintain an insurance policy for the weapons.
> 
> Taking an exam and live fire to show proficiency with the weapon should be a no-brainer. I don't know why anyone would be against that.


First part? I can live with that as long as you can live with the same requirements on your vehicle.

Second part? I guess that was just drinking beer and bull****ing when I got my CCW. I swear, I had no idea it was a test.


----------



## Steve1000

Windwalker said:


> The sheer incompetence of drivers on the road is mind boggling.


That's something we all will probably agree on no matter conservative-moderate-liberal, or Christian-other religion-no religious beliefs, Patriots fans - Eagles fans, ect!


----------



## username77

EllisRedding said:


> What happens if you sell a car to someone who has had 3 DUIs. They go out, drive drunk, and kill someone. Should the original owner of the car be held liable?


If someone ran a background check and it came back clean, they wouldn't be held liable for future violence with the sold gun. They did their due diligence and the buyer came back as clean.

This would be for someone knowingly selling to a felon or mentally unstable person and circumventing the background check process.

To me it's like people not wearing helmets on motorcycles, go ahead, but they should pay higher insurance premiums. I also think fat people and smokers should pay much higher health insurance premiums since they're by far the largest drain on the system.

Why should I have to pay for increased security at every school, airport, public place because of some peoples gun fetish? Why should I have to pay higher premiums because someone wants to eat a McDonald's value meal everyday and wash it down with a pack of Pall-Malls? Buy all the guns you want, but if one finds its way into the hands of someone who kills or maims someone be prepared to pay for the damages.


----------



## Wolf1974

username77 said:


> This is what I originally wrote:
> 
> "I definitely think if someone sells a weapon, even privately to someone who is *mentally unfit, not proficient, or a felon*, they should be personal liable "
> 
> And yes, I do think they should be held liable if they sell to a 3 time felon and that felon murders someone, they can be sued for damages. Background checks should be mandatory even for private sales.


I saw what you wrote but my question is how do you know? Who is going to check, how are you going to verify? What if they are totally legal and Then later commit a crime why are you then liable?

And if you sell it to one private citizen who isn’t any of those things then they in turn sell to a criminal why are you still liable for that because you said you are holding the original person responsible indefinitely. So how many turns if circumstances are we holding them accountable for because you also originally said vaguely “ any damage caused in the future”

You see the rabbit hole this creates.

Would also like to add owning a firearm while a convicted felon is ALREADY illegal. I’ll tell you as a 20 year veteran how they get around it is to have thier spouse,roommate, and or kid register the weapon. Those pesky criminals spend a lot of time working to get around laws

For mental health checks that’s more what I’m curious about and how you purpose that would work. Even IF you could manadate mental health exams you as a private citizen wouldn’t be entitled to the results because of Hippa. So again we are back to the individuals rights trump everything else.


----------



## Wolf1974

username77 said:


> If someone ran a background check and it came back clean, they wouldn't be held liable for future violence with the sold gun. They did their due diligence and the buyer came back as clean.
> 
> This would be for someone knowingly selling to a felon or mentally unstable person and circumventing the background check process.
> 
> To me it's like people not wearing helmets on motorcycles, go ahead, but they should pay higher insurance premiums. I also think fat people and smokers should pay much higher health insurance premiums since they're by far the largest drain on the system.
> 
> *Why should I have to pay for increased security at every school, airport, public place because of some peoples gun fetish? * Why should I have to pay higher premiums because someone wants to eat a McDonald's value meal everyday and wash it down with a pack of Pall-Malls? Buy all the guns you want, but if one finds its way into the hands of someone who kills or maims someone be prepared to pay for the damages.


Same reason I have to pay for library districts we never use or parks we never visit. The part of the government I hate the most is also the one I realize needs to exist which is they exist to TAX and SPEND for their constituents. Just the way it works 

We could talk about an ala cart form of society but it would run through all things from parks, library’s , schools to police and fire protection. Ultimately what will happen is the poorest communities will be those that suffer the most because the pay won’t be able to afford those things.


----------



## john117

The automatic vs semiautomatic weapon in mass shootings is a red herring.

A grenade has never been used for said purpose either and it ain't legal either.

The issue is not the mechanism or clip capacity - both can be circumvented fairly easily. You could sell a single shot AR-1.5  and within a week you'll be able to find the kit online. 

It's not like my country never perfected engine transplants, and dropping a BMW v6 into a puny 4 is a lot more difficult. People are creative.

The assault rifle debacle is based on looks and perception. My father's service weapon was a WW2 era Sten Mk 3 I think, which loosely resembles a bunch of pipes from a plumbing supply store. No sex appeal there. Assault rifle lookalikes now... Them sexy. So...

Bottom line: the debacle is a waste of time. There's a desirability factor in military style weapons regardless of capabilities.


----------



## Windwalker

john117 said:


> The automatic vs semiautomatic weapon in mass shootings is a red herring.
> 
> A grenade has never been used for said purpose either and it ain't legal either.
> 
> Lol. :rofl: Moving the goalposts will never be good enough for John. We need to move the entire damn stadium.
> 
> Red hereing my ass. That has nothing to do with it. You made a statement and I called you on it. Oh and FYI, grenades are legal just like full autos. Pass your background check and apply with the ATF for the tax stamp. Better get on the old Ouija board and ask Al Capone why the NFA was passed.
> 
> The issue is not the mechanism or clip capacity - both can be circumvented fairly easily. You could sell a single shot AR-1.5  and within a week you'll be able to find the kit online.
> 
> Really? How many times have you modified a gun John? Enlighten us all. Kits online? Well where do I sign up. Point me in the direction of a select fire trigger assembly and bolt and carrier group for a Smith and Wesson M&P15. I only want to spend a $100. Oh, and I will ship my rifle to you so you can install it for me. I expect 1 week total turn around.
> 
> It's not like my country never perfected engine transplants, and dropping a BMW v6 into a puny 4 is a lot more difficult. People are creative.
> 
> Wow, gods among men I tell you. Man, since the damned automobile was invented people have been stuffing the largest motors they could find in the smallest cars available. Hype and bluster.
> 
> The assault rifle debacle is based on looks and perception. My father's service weapon was a WW2 era Sten Mk 3 I think, which loosely resembles a bunch of pipes from a plumbing supply store. No sex appeal there. Assault rifle lookalikes now... Them sexy. So...
> 
> My Springfield M1A1 is practically the exact same rifle as the M1 Garand (WW2) that I own and has far better range and ballistics than the AR I own. The advantage to the AR is weight. The AR fully loaded weighs what the M1A1 does empty.
> 
> Bottom line: the debacle is a waste of time. There's a desirability factor in military style weapons regardless of capabilities.


Oh, it absolutely is a waste of time. But that's alright Ban AR's all day long. Current owners will be grandfathered in and keep their rifles just like when the last "assault rifle" ban went into effect. Then we go back to handgun shootings. Or shudder to think, some nut job decides to use a shotgun with extended magazine and open choke. 

We don't have a gun problem in this country. We have a damned human problem! 

And all those precious little snowflake that just had to have participation trophies back in the early and mid 80s and now went and made their brats even more entitled.


----------



## As'laDain

john117 said:


> Given the creativity and availability of skills for modding there's no point thinking there's a vast difference between a semiautomatic and a fully automatic anything.
> 
> Technically there are differences obviously but does it matter?


so you are evading the question?


----------



## john117

As'laDain said:


> so you are evading the question?


Nope. I'm saying that for most practical purposes there's little difference between the two in terms of amateur carnage capabilities. If we can't ban semiautomatic stuff it's pointless to think of more drastic measures.

What would the carnage be if we only had revolvers?


----------



## Wolf1974

john117 said:


> Nope. I'm saying that for most practical purposes there's little difference between the two in terms of amateur carnage capabilities. If we can't ban semiautomatic stuff it's pointless to think of more drastic measures.
> 
> What would the carnage be if we only had revolvers?


The same, perhaps worse, because in order to get your high kills couts ( the goal of the mass shooter) you would have to train a bit more and be a proficient shot(unless you had a scope) Course seeing what a 44 can do to a body is pretty devastating.


----------



## Windwalker

Wolf1974 said:


> The same, perhaps worse, because in order to get your high kills couts ( the goal of the mass shooter) you would have to train a bit more and be a proficient shot(unless you had a scope) Course seeing what a 44 can do to a body is pretty devastating.


2 stub nose. 357 magnums and 2 dozen speed loaders.

Seems to me that's about 170 rounds. Roughly the same as the Florida nut job. 
Contrary to some people's beliefs, this isn't rocket science. It's spray and pray. Given the time that this little scum bag had, the same damage could have been done with revolvers. 

If there was ever a red herring of a question, then that sure was it.


----------



## john117

*Re: A letter to the boys &amp; young men of America*



Wolf1974 said:


> The same, perhaps worse, because in order to get your high kills couts ( the goal of the mass shooter) you would have to train a bit more and be a proficient shot(unless you had a scope) Course seeing what a 44 can do to a body is pretty devastating.


A few 6 shooters are harder to carry and fire (recoil and all) and switch or reload during a bad incident compared to a basic 30 clip semiautomatic... at least that's how it looks like to a wannabe.

That's the allure of it. Fire and forget.


----------



## john117

Windwalker said:


> 2 stub nose. 357 magnums and 2 dozen speed loaders.
> 
> Seems to me that's about 170 rounds. Roughly the same as the Florida nut job.
> Contrary to some people's beliefs, this isn't rocket science. It's spray and pray. Given the time that this little scum bag had, the same damage could have been done with revolvers.
> 
> If there was ever a red herring of a question, then that sure was it.


So, why not allow the sale of landmines? Same result .

But thanks for making my point. A clear thinking, determined and knowledgeable perp will use what's available, convenient, familiar and efficient. But such people are not generally the mass shooter types. The deranged types? They go for the visual impact of it.


----------



## ConanHub

Sawney Beane said:


> I normally stay out of these discussions, but I wonder if somebody can enlighten me.
> 
> From over here, there seems to be a view in America that when compared to the threat of the federal government rocking up to oppress the American people, that the deaths of a few dozen children per year is an acceptable loss. That the price of freedom isn't eternal vigilance, but eternal vigilance and some schoolkids. Nobody comes out and says so in so many words, but that seems to be the bottom line.
> 
> Is this actually the way this is considered?


There have always been pathetic people who murder when given enough impetus and opportunity.

Public schools here are simply target rich environments with almost no threat of violent resistance.

School shootings by pathetic *******s would diminish rapidly if in every attempt, the would be murderer had his cowardly entrails blasted through his spine moments after he started his would be rampage. Then having him portrayed in the media for the spineless, pathetic ****head he really was afterward.

I see a lot of people spewing bull**** while stopping this would be as simple as having trained and armed people at schools as well as good protocol for when a moron shows up hoping for some easy targets.

State and local authorities should step up.


----------



## Windwalker

john117 said:


> So, why not allow the sale of landmines? Same result .
> 
> But thanks for making my point. A clear thinking, determined and knowledgeable perp will use what's available, convenient, familiar and efficient. But such people are not generally the mass shooter types. The deranged types? They go for the visual impact of it.


Lol Explosive devise have already been covered John. They are legal to the right individuals. Toss red herrings, breadcrumbs, whatever you chose.. That statement is a delay tactic, nothing more.

Lol. I'm taking a play out of your playbook on this one. *ANY* gun owner is a perp is your eyes and others that think the same way. So in the end, what does it matter?

That's the point. Visual impact from the deranged types. That's about the only point in this whole thing I will agree with you on. And big media from every perspective eats it up every time. So, how to expose the deranged types and how to get big media to quit treating them like celebrities should be the 2 main points of cencern. Is that what you're saying?

If so, I agree.


----------



## Windwalker

ConanHub said:


> Then having him portrayed in the media for the spineless, pathetic ****head he really was afterward.
> 
> State and local authorities should step up.


"Many in legacy media love mass shootings. You guys love it," Dana Loesch said Thursday. "Now I'm not saying that you love the tragedy. But I am saying that you love the ratings. Crying white mothers are ratings gold to you and many in the legacy media in the back (of the room)."
"And notice I said 'crying white mothers' because there are thousands of grieving black mothers in Chicago every weekend, and you don't see town halls for them, do you?"

****ing gold, because it's the truth! Start deriding these scum bags as the lowest scum the planet has ever seen and start crucifiying their character. Stop showing their pictures and just refer to them as the dirt bag shooter. These wack jobs do it partially for the publicity.

Second part? They are going to have to do a lot better job than they did in Florida, because 17 kids died because of the authorities from the feds all the way down to the locals. By my figures, they had about 50 chances, and blew every one of them!


----------



## soccermom2three

FrenchFry said:


> I'm going to link this and then copy paste the text.
> 
> Tanai Benard
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My kid is 7. His drills are getting in a corner and if someone comes in to run around being as obnoxious as possible in hopes that some of the other kids get away.
> 
> We've failed our kids and we'd basically rather sit here and throw out buzzwords, blame millennials and call each other names.
> 
> I don't even care about the gun argument. I am just so sad that basically my kid knows that he is chum for this world already.


I really hate that our kids have to deal with this. My son told me that starting this week, when they are in the classroom the door has to be locked at all times. If someone knocks at the door, they have to look out the window before they answer.


----------



## sandcastle

Is there a correlation to these school shootings carried out by juveniles- let's leave out Tim McVeigh, and every other ADULT mass murderer-

To the advent of Video games and the use of the interenet?

Blurred lines from a game and a mentally ill and ANGRY male to the step from the game screen to reality? 

What year did the first school shooting occur?


----------



## john117

Windwalker said:


> Lol Explosive devise have already been covered John. They are legal to the right individuals. Toss red herrings, breadcrumbs, whatever you chose.. That statement is a delay tactic, nothing more.
> 
> Lol. I'm taking a play out of your playbook on this one. *ANY* gun owner is a perp is your eyes and others that think the same way. So in the end, what does it matter?
> 
> That's the point. Visual impact from the deranged types. That's about the only point in this whole thing I will agree with you on. And big media from every perspective eats it up every time. So, how to expose the deranged types and how to get big media to quit treating them like celebrities should be the 2 main points of cencern. Is that what you're saying?
> 
> If so, I agree.


Hardly. I grew up an army brat and watched my father and his unit practice in the range (rank has his privilege). Everyone hunts and is a member of the national guard ergo assault rifle in every house.

In America, the way we're going, everyone is a perp, assault rifle or 2x4. Instead of taking care of our people using our vast resources we demonize the mentally ill, let them loose in the streets, and then wonder about the outcome.

Look. I have 3 degrees in psychology. I know a thing or two about mental health. We have been fed the American ideation of Paul Bunion and whoever else and that's great, but that was centuries ago. We haven't matured much. 

School shootings will stop once we start understanding each other, not once we arm the custodians and ban BB guns.

Besides, the ship for "meaningful" gun restrictions has sailed. If it ever existed.


----------



## sandcastle

john117 said:


> Look. I have 3 degrees in psychology. I know a thing or two about mental health. We have been fed the American ideation of Paul Bunion and whoever else and that's great, but that was centuries ago. We haven't matured much.
> 
> School shootings will stop once we start understanding each other,


Oh Goody! 3 psychology degrees!

So- can you weigh in on the most violent and horrific video games that are currently being played for hours on end by the 7-15 year old males in the US?

Ya know- the ones that have access to guns?

And the correlation to those boys killing their current or former classmates? 

Have any male ice skaters that practice 8 hours a day mowed down their innocent classmates ?


----------



## Windwalker

john117 said:


> Hardly. I grew up an army brat and watched my father and his unit practice in the range (rank has his privilege). Everyone hunts and is a member of the national guard ergo assault rifle in every house.
> 
> In America, the way we're going, everyone is a perp, assault rifle or 2x4. Instead of taking care of our people using our vast resources we demonize the mentally ill, let them loose in the streets, and then wonder about the outcome.
> 
> Look. I have 3 degrees in psychology. I know a thing or two about mental health. We have been fed the American ideation of Paul Bunion and whoever else and that's great, but that was centuries ago. We haven't matured much.
> 
> School shootings will stop once we start understanding each other, not once we arm the custodians and ban BB guns.
> 
> Besides, the ship for "meaningful" gun restrictions has sailed. If it ever existed.


I'm going to be real blunt here. Have fond memories of the home country, there's not a single thing wrong with that. At the end of the day though, you keep dogging on my home, all for political ideology. She's got her problems, always has, but it's not like other countries haven't had their damn fair share. That condescending "backwards ass Americans" attitude isn't going to get you much understanding. 

To quote Merle Haggard, "If you don't love it, leave it!"

Now as to the mental health issues this country faces, I'm fully aware of them and I won't disagree with you. My home town *USED* to have one of the biggest state mental institutions in my state. When it closed the patients went in either group homes or on the streets and the employees lost their jobs. In the early 80''s deinstitutionalisation was in its final stages, and one of the biggest mistakes ever made. But hey, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. 

There were an awful lot of bad places, but not all of them. They served a very good public service for the most part. So, now we have mentally ill people on the streets and or breeding and creating more mentally ill. Talk about a recipe for disaster. It was both sides that helped create this problem, Dems and Repubs!

You want to fix this? One of the first steps is to bring back institutions. If that requires raising taxes, then so be it. Mandate 3rd part oversight and regulations that dictate humane treatment and conditions. The people that can be treated and rehabilitatated should be released with programs to help them reacclimate to outside life, but make damn sure their names are on a NICS no-purchase list. Mandate that the entire system is audited every single year for fiscal responsibility and regulatory compliance. 

Second part of that is, if residents of mental hospitals are on a no-purchase list, then we keep felons on it as well. That BS Terry McAuliffe from Virginia pulled in 2016 is just that, BS!

First thing we need to do though is lock down soft targets. Make the schools like airports. Only a couple ways in and out. Local law enforcement security or school (Air) marshalls.

Expand the database and mandate all states to forward pertinent information.

There's plenty more that could be done as well. Here's the thing though, those things I just mentioned still won't fix the problem. 25+ plus years ago, you could walk into the parking lot of just about any school and collect over a 100 guns of various types. Almost all the pickups had rifle racks in the back windows.

As I said before, we don't have a gun problem, we have a human being problem.


----------



## john117

sandcastle said:


> Oh Goody! 3 psychology degrees!
> 
> So- can you weigh in on the most violent and horrific video games that are currently being played for hours on end by the 7-15 year old males in the US?
> 
> Ya know- the ones that have access to guns?
> 
> And the correlation to those boys killing their current or former classmates?
> 
> Have any male ice skaters that practice 8 hours a day mowed down their innocent classmates ?


Sure. I'm not practicing tho. That's the other side of the building . I help design stuff. 

I'm also an avid gamer. My daughters too. From a very young age. And we have not turned into ax murderers. 

It's not an issue, as much as I know. There's a huge difference between a game controller and an AR-15. People know that. Those who don't, and play Call of Duty then do bad things, it's not the game. If nothing else it keeps kids off the streets. 

Is it a waste of time? Yes. Takes away interaction? Some - but a headset fixes that to some extent. 

Eventually most kids outgrow shoot them up type games.


----------



## john117

Criticizing a country that for the most part is great but occasionally lets things fall thru the cracks is the patriotic thing to do. I'm vocal, and I vote. That's all one can and should do. When the time comes, I'll bail out. Florence KY vs Florence Italy, whoa, what a tough choice . Actually the tough choice is between Medicare co-pays and buying private health insurance in Italy or France. But I digress. I'm not Italian BTW.

Mental health is not limited to Bellevue. It's about addressing the causes of mental health. I've got ADHD. Long before we even knew what ADHD was. Finally diagnosed in grad school stateside. DD 1 has it too. S-wife has BPD and mild Asperger's. We're not strangers to it. But we manage, and try to alleviate the triggers. 

America, sad to say, is not good here. 

We're not interested in what causes mental illness. Or prevents it. All we care is to medicate. And treat. And stiff the families with crappy insurance plans that don't cover squat. And employers who don't care. 

That needs fixing, not whether bump stocks are available online for Johnny's AR-15.


----------



## sandcastle

john117 said:


> Sure. I'm not practicing tho. That's the other side of the building . I help design stuff.
> 
> I'm also an avid gamer. My daughters too. From a very young age. And we have not turned into ax murderers.
> 
> It's not an issue, as much as I know. There's a huge difference between a game controller and an AR-15. People know that. Those who don't, and play Call of Duty then do bad things, it's not the game. If nothing else it keeps kids off the streets.
> 
> Is it a waste of time? Yes. Takes away interaction? Some - but a headset fixes that to some extent.
> 
> Eventually most kids outgrow shoot them up type games.


Does the Blue Whale Game and the juvenile suicides connected with THE GAME concern the 3 degrees in you?

It is just a game.


----------



## TX-SC

*Re: A letter to the boys &amp; young men of America*



username77 said:


> .223 Remington and the 5.56mm NATO rounds are not the same thing.
> 
> No one hunts with an AR-15 shooting a 5.56mm round. I've never seen it and I've been hunting since I was 12 across 7 different states. Most states don't allow it because the caliber isn't large enough and it's considered inhumane.
> 
> Anyone trying to sell the AR-15 as a hunting rifle is full of ****.


This I'll have to disagree with. Although I personally am not a fan of the caliber, any center fire rifle cartridge including the .223, .22-250, and others are legal for wildlife (including deer) in Texas. Rimfire .22 caliber is illegal for big game. Many people use an AR15 or Mini 14 for feral hog hunting, where the goal is to simply kill or would as many as possible. 5.56 is very common for hunting here as it is supposed to have better sectional density than .223. There isn't much concern to how overall effective it is in the pig hunting regard overall though and many people have their young children hunt with the round as there is little recoil. Personally, I prefer lever action rifles for that, or possible buckshot.

Now, with that being said, I don't think it's necessary and I would have no issues with these rifles being banned. In fact, ban tannerite too.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## john117

*Re: A letter to the boys &amp; young men of America*



sandcastle said:


> Does the Blue Whale Game and the juvenile suicides connected with THE GAME concern the 3 degrees in you?
> 
> It is just a game.


My second degree looked at it and determined that Blue Whale is a rather sophisticated online community with message boards, etc. 

In other words, there's a considerable difference between BW and Halo. 

The analogy would be more with an organized cult, rather than a game.


----------



## Windwalker

john117 said:


> Criticizing a country that for the most part is great but occasionally lets things fall thru the cracks is the patriotic thing to do. I'm vocal, and I vote. That's all one can and should do. When the time comes, I'll bail out. Florence KY vs Florence Italy, whoa, what a tough choice . Actually the tough choice is between Medicare co-pays and buying private health insurance in Italy or France. But I digress. I'm not Italian BTW.
> 
> Mental health is not limited to Bellevue. It's about addressing the causes of mental health. I've got ADHD. Long before we even knew what ADHD was. Finally diagnosed in grad school stateside. DD 1 has it too. S-wife has BPD and mild Asperger's. We're not strangers to it. But we manage, and try to alleviate the triggers.
> 
> America, sad to say, is not good here.
> 
> We're not interested in what causes mental illness. Or prevents it. All we care is to medicate. And treat. And stiff the families with crappy insurance plans that don't cover squat. And employers who don't care.
> 
> That needs fixing, not whether bump stocks are available online for Johnny's AR-15.


Legitimate criticism, of which I have my fair share, and derogatory condemnation are two totally separate things. I have my complaints, just as you and all 320 million people in this country do. You know, some of those complaints we just might agree with, some, we absolutely won't. I also agree that there is nothing un-patriotic about leveling legitimate complaints. The part that that pisses me off is dogging on it like it's the biggest **** hole on the planet. We both know that the people that like to lip off like that are most generally of a very progressive ideology. So if I have jumped to conclusions, I will be the first to apologize.. Im fully aware you're not Italian. 

As far as your statement about mental health, I can't argue with any of that. It's not just mental health that gets the pill treatment. All health care has boiled down to "there's a pill" for that condition. The part we would argue about is who pays for it, which in the end is going to be the tax payers anyways. :cussing:

I'm not against helping hands to those who truly need it. I do believe everyone needs some flesh in the game though. 

Coddling and participation trophies gets us more of the same we are currently choking on.


----------



## john117

The thing is, we aren't doing anyone any favors by comparing other ways that humans have developed to off themselves or others. 

Threats develop and we deal with them. That's how it works.

Are we going to ban Japanese or Korean cram schools to prevent suicides for fear of failure on the national university entrance exam?


----------



## john117

Coddling works actually. If you do it right


----------



## Wolf1974

*Re: A letter to the boys &amp; young men of America*



john117 said:


> A few 6 shooters are harder to carry and fire (recoil and all) and switch or reload during a bad incident compared to a basic 30 clip semiautomatic... at least that's how it looks like to a wannabe.
> 
> That's the allure of it. Fire and forget.


Volume of weapons carried has never been an issue in mass shootings. Every one I know of they brought multiple weapons including the last one. You really only would need 2 and few speed loaders.


----------



## Wolf1974

john117 said:


> So, why not allow the sale of landmines? Same result .
> 
> But thanks for making my point. A clear thinking, determined and knowledgeable perp will use what's available, convenient, familiar and efficient. But such people are not generally the mass shooter types. The deranged types? They go for the visual impact of it.


No need to sell them when you can make them at home. Also a trait you find in multiple mass shootings. Homemade explosives all thanks to google and u tube


----------



## sandcastle

*Re: A letter to the boys &amp; young men of America*



john117 said:


> My second degree looked at it and determined that Blue Whale is a rather sophisticated online community with message boards, etc.
> 
> In other words, there's a considerable difference between BW and Halo.
> 
> The analogy would be more with an organized cult, rather than a game.


It is an online influence- just like gamers have their chat and all kinds of nasty things occur there- Right?

Underage cybersexting with adults- 

You kinda remind me of the soap in the bathtub-


----------



## Wolf1974

ConanHub said:


> There have always been pathetic people who murder when given enough impetus and opportunity.
> 
> Public schools here are simply target rich environments with almost no threat of violent resistance.
> 
> School shootings by pathetic *******s would diminish rapidly if in every attempt, the would be murderer had his cowardly entrails blasted through his spine moments after he started his would be rampage. Then having him portrayed in the media for the spineless, pathetic ****head he really was afterward.
> 
> I see a lot of people spewing bull**** while stopping this would be as simple as having trained and armed people at schools as well as good protocol for when a moron shows up hoping for some easy targets.
> 
> State and *local* authorities should step up.


We have Conan. I have been in multiple schools and churches and told them they are security nightmares. Some heed the warning....most don’t. Then you have to fight against the head in the sand mentality when they tell you no one brings guns in their place because it isn’t allowed. I mean on more than one occasion I was left speechless by the stupidity of those in charge of schools and churches . 

To make these targets hard targets will only ever come with federal mandates and a big change in mentality thinking. I can tell you for certain more than a few will fight it.


----------



## sandcastle

john117 said:


> Are we going to ban Japanese or Korean cram schools to prevent suicides for fear of failure on the national university entrance exam?


Well- probably not but you are aware that the Palo Alto School district had the CDC come in to investigate the alarming number of students committing suicide by train.

Those upper class over achievers just off themselves rather than their entire school. 

And AK 47's don't go well with the Van tennies.

Kinda stick out on University Ave.


----------



## john117

That's the whole point... 

Emotionally fragile people.

Not a good recipe.


----------



## Ikaika

What do I think of the article? Garbage. It sounds like some guy blaming everyone else but himself. “I’m a victim”. Ugh 

My sons do not hear any message other than - no will hand you anything. You want it, you have to work for it. When my son’s team lost in the semifinals in the last three seconds by a single point, there was no trophy. I told my son get used to disappointment, but just know preseason starts “tomorrow”. 

I would say the same thing if I had a daughter. 

If someone wants to blame the FL shooting on all males under the age of 20, he is just wrongheaded. Anyone who is gullible to believe that message, is wasting their time. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## GusPolinski

P.S. Stop eating Tide pods.


----------



## Thor

An excellent summary article. Six Reasons You Aren?t Agreeing to More Gun Control ? Notes from KR. It represents the position of virtually every gun owner I know.

Watch the second video which shows how quickly one can shoot 19th century technology firearms. Someone intent on mass casualties could do a lot of damage with revolvers, lever rifles, or pump shotguns. If you magically make all the lawfully owned AR15s or even all lawfully owned semi-auto rifles disappear, school shooters will still be capable of killing masses of defenseless students.

Watch the third video, which demonstrates how quickly a reload is accomplished. You aren't bum rushing a shooter while he reloads! Meaning that reduced capacity magazines aren't going to hinder the mass shooter.

From a practical standpoint I think the most important part of the article is


> We are past the tipping point for gun laws in the US. The majority of gun laws passed after Sandy Hook have been met with widespread disobedience from gun owners: magazine capacity bans, assault weapon registration, and universal background checks are essentially being ignored. Law enforcement in states that have passed those laws are not enforcing the laws, and in many cases have taken legal action to oppose them in court.


Compliance with any registration scheme, universal background checks, bans of specific weapons, e.g. AR, bans on normal capacity magazines, etc will be almost non-existent.

For decades now gun owners have repeatedly offered solutions to violent crimes and have pointed out how the existing laws aren't being enforced. But we are met with ridicule and insults for not agreeing on yet more takings of our (and your!!) civil rights. If you are promoting more restrictions on lawful gun owners, understand the lesson of why Trump won and why it was such a surprise. Gun owners have largely removed themselves from the public dialog but it doesn't mean they are wavering.


----------



## ConanHub

Wolf1974 said:


> We have Conan. I have been in multiple schools and churches and told them they are security nightmares. Some heed the warning....most don’t. Then you have to fight against the head in the sand mentality when they tell you no one brings guns in their place because it isn’t allowed. I mean on more than one occasion I was left speechless by the stupidity of those in charge of schools and churches .
> 
> To make these targets hard targets will only ever come with federal mandates and a big change in mentality thinking. I can tell you for certain more than a few will fight it.


I absolutely get it and should have clarified. The citizens of every state, down to local levels need to step up with their law enforcement officials and make this happen. It wouldn't be hard but I fully get the head in the sand, idiot fog that you are dealing with.

I dealt with it for years in ministry.


----------



## john117

"If you are promoting more restrictions on lawful gun owners, understand the lesson of why Trump won and why it was such a surprise. "

It boggles the mind that arguments like the above are actually made.

There's already more guns than people in America, with a buying spree largely fueled by paranoia about Obama confiscating our guns and all that. 

We'll get a few "restrictions" proposed by Trump of all people from this one too and go about our way. Nothing to see.


----------



## EllisRedding

soccermom2three said:


> I really hate that our kids have to deal with this. My son told me that starting this week, when they are in the classroom the door has to be locked at all times. If someone knocks at the door, they have to look out the window before they answer.


Supposedly in our school district I just found out the same thing as well, the door has to be locked.

There has been some discussion what to do about the public library since it is connected to one of the schools in the district. Since the library is open to the public, you can't restrict who is on the school campus.

Really, at the end of the day, we are in a different age. We can have stronger gun control, ban some/all guns, etc... The fact still remains, for some reason there are now a small group of people in society who see schools and mass murder as acceptable. Until we can tackle the whys here, schools will continue to be a target, regardless of what weapons are available.


----------



## samyeagar

sandcastle said:


> Is there a correlation to these school shootings carried out by juveniles- let's leave out Tim McVeigh, and every other ADULT mass murderer-
> 
> To the advent of Video games and the use of the interenet?
> 
> Blurred lines from a game and a mentally ill and ANGRY male to the step from the game screen to reality?
> 
> What year did the first school shooting occur?


I think the correlation between games and violence has largely been looked at backwards. That the game causes the violence, as opposed to the potentially violent person seeks out the game. The thing is, CoD type shoot em up games are so mainstream now, and actually have been for quite some time, with a significant portion of the playerbase being female.

As to the internet, I do see that as a very dangerous thing for young people. We have always had bullying and bullies, but now, there is absolutely no respite for the person who is bullied. Hell, going to school may actually be the lull in the bullying now adays. Before, once school was out, and the school yard was cleared, there was a break where the kids were all separated, a cooling off period. That is gone now. Instead, the bullying continues across various social media platforms, reaches coulntless people, where any thought can be conveyed immediately and in an instant.


----------

