I didn't whatabout in any respect. That was you comparing military "style" to what we are talking about in our society. Very few shootings involve military weapons, unless we are talking about how they look.
OOTB's Political Thread . ..
- Thread starter BillyL
- Start date
Fair enough. I mean, it's not like any of our Federal agencies like the FBI might be involved in political issues, lol.
Do we want to put our nation's resources into militarizing schools or making the deadly weapons harder to get?
NPR had a thing in which experts found school and other mass shooters to all have warped sense of entitlement, they felt they were owed romance, money (economic status), social status, etc, and felt resentment that weren't getting these things. They'd felt long-term frustration in terms of school, romance, and finances/work, and some real or perceived grievance bubbled over, forcing them to lash out in a manner of "violent control".
So how do we make people feel like they have community and that life isn't always fair? That problem is just as hard as the problem of easy access to guns that are made with intent to kill lots of people easily.
Just to break the gloom a bit there is some guy in the news involved with trump whose last name is “pecker” and it’s making for some hilarious lines from the news casters. “That’s why they want pecker in there” “how long before we see pecker?” “Will trump regret his relationship with pecker?”
General public doesn't need guns that have high capacity, powerful rounds, that are easy to fire repeatedly. Military does. In some countries cops do...
If we don't care what types of guns or weapons the public has, why not make hand grenades cheap and publicly available?
And for you-know-who
Last edited:
You always do this. (Btw, I wondered how long it would take you to join in, ha, ha. Welcome.) Instead of just talking in generalities of wanting to do something, tell us what should specifically be done? And remember, saying things like universal background checks is not specific. This is particularly so when we know that many of the criminal act shooters don't ever acquire their firearms through legal means and in this particular instance, it has already been reported (I have no idea if it is accurate or not) that the shooter had no history of mental issues. So, unless you are suggesting that the idea of being trans is in itself a mental issue which would disqualify one from having access to firearms, what would or should a background check have done?
Also, I should add that despite what our wonderful leader who apparently immediately made a statement about this situation, but had to first joke about coming for the ice cream and that he had a bunch of ice cream upstairs, says, the previous assault weapons ban did not work according to our own Justice Department study and others.
Have you melted down your Glock yet?
It's not access to guns and as Europeans have imported more people from other cultures, we're seeing lots of violent crimes on the rise.
It's cultural. Mexico has very strong gun laws. Does it work?
No. It's like the war on drugs, and regardless, it's enshrined in the 2nd amendment.
We used to have less shootings with more access to guns. What was different?
The culture.
Oh, and Ukraine is part of Europe. Same with Croatia, Bosnia and Serbia.
Ireland has their fair share of gun and even bomb violence.
What are you talking about? Who is manufacturing what? The shooter had a manifesto that has not yet been released (if it ever is). Presumably it has the shooter's reasons for taking these actions. Considering our political climate involving the issue of trans currently, I'm hoping you could agree that it is a divisive issue. As such, it those are the reasons, they would be slow to release such information. I said nothing negative or conjured up anything about them or made any judgment and you'll be hard pressed to go back through my posts and show otherwise.
Maybe it just says that the shooter hated a particular set of teachers. I have no idea.
I'm in favor of banning "assault weapons" if for no other reason than to see all the shocked pikachu faces when the first mass shooting with an assault rifle happens after the ban is enacted.
"hOw CoUlD tHaT bE pOsSiBlE??"
"hOw CoUlD tHaT bE pOsSiBlE??"
Apple started developing the iphone in 2005. Maybe that's the reason. Also, where's the line in 1994 for when the ban started? Seems like if there was a point to be made by the graph, you'd see a similar amount of dots before as you do after the ban. You don't because that's not the problem. You also see no graphing for just those mass shootings committed with so-called assault weapons. If they banned, there should be no dots between 1994 and 2004.
I'm not here to write books, sorry if this is too general:
It is possible to make it harder to get guns, make it harder to use guns.
- Red flags and gun storage would help on the latter.
- Background-related restrictions on sellers, licensing requirements, training requirements b4 license, registration, manufacturing bans could help on the former.
Not a bad idea, just wasting space locked for eternity otherwise (til the zombies come).
I assume that you are not military or law enforcement that would be justified in having such guns except those provided by your employer.
Have you melted down your Glock? It has high capacity capability, a powerful round, and is easy to fire repeatedly. Why didn't you reject it when you inherited the firearm? Why didn't you immediately rid the world of one more of these hideous killing machines?
Rules for thee, but not for me much?
I assume you are pulling talking points from Fox news or similar.
Dems are going to jump all over this school shooting, just like every other. Gender dysphoria rumors or reality aren't going to hinder that for a minute. Dems want improved health care in this country, including mental, they also want gun control.
I don't think it is a divisive issue. I think right-wingers have their panties in a wad over it, it's barely a blip on the radar for left-wingers. In the list of issues top-of-mind for left-wingers trans-issues is minor because there are much bigger, broader, more important matters.
Do it now and post a video.
And that's the point. You're not going postal despite the fact that you have this weapon. It's about you and not the Glock.
I wouldn't have any problem no longer having the glock. Hand-guns are so common in accidents... and a shot-gun is the thing i'd prefer for home-defense.
Care to answer the question about hand grenades since I might find a grenade useful to defend my home against invaders or overbearing gov?
Not sure what you mean by "so common in accidents". There is the rare issue of someone improperly storing firearms when minors can gain access. There is also the rare issue of someone failing to clear the firearm while cleaning it and ALWAYS treating a firearm as loaded. Beyond that, accidental shootings are almost always involving someone using or having a firearm illegally. For example, an 18 year old gang member has his handgun which is found hidden by his little brother.
Also, assuming it is in good condition, you could easily trade the Glock for a shotgun, maybe two, if that is what you desire, and have money left over for ammo and some training.
A hand grenade is an explosive in a prebuilt form. I understand where you're going, but I won't bite. Incidentally, when our chief ice cream officer makes his claim that you couldn't own cannons, he's wrong. Almost no one could afford or wanted them, but there was nothing prohibiting their ownership.
What does prebuilt form have to do with it? Modern rapid-fire, high-capacity guns make it really easy to spray a shit-ton of bullets, almost almost as easy as pulling a pen. What's the difference?
If you are going to make guns to easy to acquire, why not let me own hand grenades for defending myself from tyrants and the MS-13?
One thing that shouldn’t be lost, holy shit Nashville PD saved so many lives. That body cam footage is unbelievable, they stormed right in and secured every room. Heros.
Indeed. I hate that they release footage of the shooter roaming the halls, less notoriety for that type of POS the better. But huge thanks and props to these guys:
I've noticed the media doesn't hesitate to get their angle in these shootings. For this one, I saw Fox stressing that a "TRANS shooter shot up a CHRISTIAN school". In the past, MSNBC has stressed that a "WHITE SUPPREMACIST has shot up a GAY nightclub".
Never let a crisis go to waste, I guess.
Never let a crisis go to waste, I guess.
what is a mass shooting?
” The FBI has not set a minimum number of casualties to qualify an event as a mass shooting, but U.S. statute (the Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2012) defines a “mass killing” as “3 or more killings in a single incident.”
And domestic incidents are included, and which comprise the majority of cases if I'm not mistaken.
” The FBI has not set a minimum number of casualties to qualify an event as a mass shooting, but U.S. statute (the Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2012) defines a “mass killing” as “3 or more killings in a single incident.”
And domestic incidents are included, and which comprise the majority of cases if I'm not mistaken.
Curious about the difference tween rounds fired from a typical AR-style compared to a 9mm? And Sandy Hook or Parkman?
check this, no paywall. Pretty cool journalism even if you dislike the idea of gun control.
The Blast Effect: How bullets from an AR-15 blow the body apart
The Washington Post examined autopsy and postmortem reports from nearly a hundred victims of mass shootings that involved an AR-15 style rifles.
check this, no paywall. Pretty cool journalism even if you dislike the idea of gun control.
The Blast Effect: How bullets from an AR-15 blow the body apart
The Washington Post examined autopsy and postmortem reports from nearly a hundred victims of mass shootings that involved an AR-15 style rifles.
Last edited:
to be accurate, the military uses assault weapons because first and foremost, they are fully automatic. They are machine guns. Assault STYLE weapons that are sold here for personal use are not fully automatic, they are just semi-automatic (which admittedly still makes them potentially more deadly than a rifle that has to be cocked for every shot); that is, they are not for all practical purposes machine guns/assault weapons unless illegally obtained or modified. They are of course still deadly (as is any firearm), but there is a distinct and very large difference between military use and normal domestic, personal use.
In the article I linked previously, there are some very informative graphs. One shows the preponderance of handguns used in mass shootings, as opposed to automatic rifles. And all semi-automatic rifles are NOT assault style guns.
I agree with the notion that addressing the root cause is more important and more sensible than trying to limit the ability to commit mayhem. I think the reason there is a difference in the statistics of other countries and ours is more in the impetus rather than the access. Maybe looking into what we stick, or allow to be stuck in the heads of our children is key. Maybe the way we sensationalize everything matters.
Last edited:
Instead of trying to define assault and military, why not just define what civilians need for
a) personal defense:
- A little stopping power.
- Makes a big loud noise.
- locked storage cases or carriers.
b) defense against tyrannical power:
- Bunker to protect you from the drones and tanks. Ask people on the ground in the middle east how well machine guns help protect them from "tyrannical US invaders"
Everything else is in the category of things civvies DON'T need:
- high-capacity
- semi-automatic combined with highly lethal round.
AR-style are lightweight, easy to aim, easy to load and meet both of the above things which aren't needed. If these are going to be publicly available we need to make them harder to buy and easier to take away (red flag laws).
Last edited:
But we can't even pinpoint the root cause.
They have video games, they have social media, they have drugs & rock-n-roll. They have cultural differences, but how much American culture do you want to remove?
Teen suicide and depression are way up. Other health probs in young people are also way up in America. What is easier, fix these societal problems or make it harder for civilians to have guns (which aren't needed by 90+ % of the gun owners)?
Which would cost fewer taxpayer dollars - altering American culture and improving mental health (which we guess might help) or making it harder for people to get guns (which we've seen help in states and other countries)?
Last edited:
was any of this actually news to you?Curious about the difference tween rounds fired from a typical AR-style compared to a 9mm? And Sandy Hook or Parkman?
check this, no paywall. Pretty cool journalism even if you dislike the idea of gun control.
The Blast Effect: How bullets from an AR-15 blow the body apart
The Washington Post examined autopsy and postmortem reports from nearly a hundred victims of mass shootings that involved an AR-15 style rifles.
A .223 projectile generally has far more energy at impact than a 9mm, and that higher energy causes a different result. That higher energy is mostly a function of the amount of propellant in the cartridge relative to the weight of the projectile. Duh. Calling the damage that occurs the 'blast effect' seems simplistically idiotic to me. That smacks of a journalist who doesn't really understand what is presented and is just parroting terms.
The lower energy of a 9mm is why it can travel linearly through the target and exit without doing so much damage. That's why nines are so often not recommended for home defense.
because I was addressing what another poster posted about military use vs. civilian use.
then maybe we should try harder to do that, and spend less time demonizing inanimate objects
how many deaths do you want to prevent?
I haven't spent that much time in Europe but in the time that I have spent there I can attest that there is much less exposure to television violence. Apparently Europeans are more interested in sex.
Just wake up. and look around. Half of what is on TV is a crime depiction where someone is killed, and kids are just as exposed as to this as adults are anymore. And it's treated so casually commonplace that I can see an impressionable mind not finding the concept as abhorrent and unacceptable as a European might. MANY such questions abound and before we start taking mindless shortcuts, I believe we should take a good hard look at what we've become.
And television is just one aspect of our relative cultures.
I think the question shouldn't be what is easier for a short-term effect, but rather what makes FAR more sense for an ever-increasing problem that is about a lot more than gun death statistics..
obviously, you've taken an anti-gun position and are trying hard to rationalize it, which is what you do. That's OK. But if you open your mind and apply some reason, you wouldn't try to make this about the dollars and cents...you would make it about solving the problem.
how much imagination does it take to understand that in defending one's own home against home invasion, you have to wait for the invasion to occur. You can't just identify a possible enemy combatant or MS-13 member in your back yard and lob a grenade at him. And once he enters your home, destroying the home you're defending with a grenade would be nonsensically counterproductive.
Nor could you lob a grenade into a food court full of people to take out a mass shooter. That would also tend to be counter to the goal of saving lives.
What's needed, of course, is an aimable weapon that fires at a precise or fairly precise target.
Guns a directly correlated to the problem. Correlation != causation, but at least we have a hint and clue on that angle. On the other you are theorizing about Europeans being more interested in sex or having less violent TV. LOL.
If repubs are ready to spend money on Public Health - i'm all for it.
Again, If repubs are ready to spend money on Public Health - i'm all for it.
If a tyrant has me pinned down, and i'm a little out-gunned then I want a grenade to help defend myself and my position. Grenades are pretty useful in tactical combat, and if I need a tactical gun, I want other tactical weapons. Gimme my grenades.
Sorry the LOL at your perspective. Not sure if this was you being honest or not.
Either way, something I think a little more applicable is Europeans having social safety nets. They don't see their friends, fam and friends go bankrupt due to medical emergencies and tuition.
try to remember we are talking about fixing the root cause vs. taking myopic expedient shortcuts that intrude on Constitutional rights. Then try to remember that you brought up a comparison between European culture and our own. I'm just pointing out the differences that you seem to want to ignore.
as long as we don't go too far afield as liberals would usually have us do, so am I. Where my mental health money would be spent on trying to understand why some are so prone to disregarding the value of human life, the liberals would in the blink of an eye be funding out-of-the-country abortions and the taxpayer supported right of unwed women to have 13 children.
see above.
Maybe dwelling in the real world from time to time would be your best defense.
If you had a grenade, I'm sure the greatest danger would be to yourself.
Similar threads
