HOW MANY CHILDREN NEED TO DIE BEFORE GUN LAWS CHANGE IN THE USA

[awwc]

There's no need to insult people that don't have the same opinions. It's why I closed my Trump thread. Thiers no need for it. People have become so fragile that just another opinion makes them upset.


I don't disagree with you on parts. Trumps is hardly the person to quote as right lol. . Many don't think People's lives are worth saving. Playing with a specific gun is vastly more important. I'll be long dead when/if it happens. Those in power want the public divided/fighting.

Trump is the best president if you value honesty. Most honest US president in history.

Then again, if you walk down the street and you see a fat karen, not so nice walking up to her saying '' you're probably going to die early of obesity'' even though it's the truth, sort of sums up mr trump lol.

 

[awwc]

Banning guns won't work, hows the banning of drugs working out, has it stopped people getting them or dying?

Well if you look at history, in China the opium crisis when it was fully ''legall'' in China almost wiped out the enitre nation of China before the US was even founded. The ban on Drugs in China seems to be working because they actually are enforcing it unlike the US which allows drugs to enter the country on a large scale, then fck up ppl for selling them and not punish users, for the most part.

So yeah again, a very narrow minded perspective.

BUT I agree, banning guns, rn for the us 100% won't work, Like I said, I'm a broken record by now, There is no solution to this issue, there just isn't ppl have to accept it.

 

[RobFromTX]

Trump is the best president if you value honesty. Most honest US president in history.

Then again, if you walk down the street and you see a fat karen, not so nice walking up to her saying '' you're probably going to die early of obesity'' even though it's the truth, sort of sums up mr trump lol.

Well damn you brought up trump. Time for a new round of bullshit. And just when we were getting back to the childrens suffering

 

[JKD]

What is encouraging in this thread are the few areas of common agreement - mental health, violent criminals, perhaps around the role of media.

It's easy to lose sight of the things in common if you let yourself push everyone into pro and anti, rather than accept there are diverse and nuanced positions across the political spectrum.

 

[moose eater]

What if the gubmnt were to severly restrict ammunition but let folks keep their 'arms', would that ever become a legal possibility?

There've been proposals to encode markers on gunpowder granules YEARS ago, just like they proposed for explosive fertilizers after OKC and McVey, and lots of people in the US reload ammunition.

Any time the gun fondlers get paranoid and the markets take manipulative advantage by crying "THEY'RE COMING FOR YER GUNS!!" people have often not only stocked up en masse on redundant firearms (how many can a person carry?), but powder, projectiles, and pre-loaded ammunition, too.

And most bans, by necessity, grandfather already existing ammunition that's banned, rifles that are restricted, etc., etc.

It's a retailer's and manufacturer's dream come true, this often-unfounded paranoia.

I have thousands of rounds of vest-piercing steel-core Asian and European military ammunition that Clinton banned commercial importation of in the early 1990s (7.62x39), in part because there was a delay before laws took effect. Capable of penetrating engine blocks.

Randy Newman, "It's Money That Matters."



AC/DC, 'Listen to the Money Talk'

 

[moose eater]

That is a matter of opinion which I disagree with. I am way beyond caring about any rights to own ARs at this point.

Had both class III and conventional arms in .223/5.56 mm. There's a reason why the troops in SE Asia complained when McNamara's pipedream came into play and they took away most of their traditional .308 caliber M1A's, M14's, etc.

"We had to shoot them 3 times as many times!!"

 

[awwc]

Well damn you brought up trump. Time for a new round of bullshit. And just when we were getting back to the childrens suffering

Let's goooooo, popcorn ready just melted some butter as well! Did I lie tho

 

[thugpoet]

The problem on this issue is that there is no middle ground, no compromise. It's either "take away all the (legal) guns" or "It's all a mental health issue and social media".

Yes, having guns be legal is going to generate collateral damage (see also cars, Aspirin, ...).
Yes, publicizing mass shooters in the media is going to brew more mass shooters. However, mass shootings only account for 0.1% of all gun deaths in the us.
The AR-15 is not an "assault rifle", it's not an automatic weapon. It's no different than many other rifles. It just happens to be one of the best rifles on the market, hence it is so popular and you hear about it all the time in the news. But it's the person who's pulling the trigger that's the real problem.

Legally, there is the question of the 2nd Amendment which clearly states "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." You can agree or disagree on whether that makes sense, but given how hard it is for a budget to get approved, a constitutional amendment is all but impossible especially one on such a polarizing issue.

There is no easy solution. You can't ban all weapons when the Constitution clearly states it violates a fundamental right and there are over 100 million firearms already in circulation.

There are so many people with health issues or people that are unstable emotionally and can just snap.
So trying to control it that way is just futile. Also, see red flag laws in certain states which are not at all effective.

That's why we are stuck with this shit. Better learn to live with it and get your CCW.

Cannamicably,

Thug

 

[Hammerhead]

Trump is the best president if you value honesty. Most honest US president in history.

Then again, if you walk down the street and you see a fat karen, not so nice walking up to her saying '' you're probably going to die early of obesity'' even though it's the truth, sort of sums up mr trump lol.

LOL, That post is a perfect example of how bad the mental state is of many in the USA. Might as well just be Syria thinking like that.




Nobody has said a word about banning all weapons. Any weapon of war is not for the public. If you need 10+ rounds to hit a target maybe shooting isn't the right hobby. AR platforms were designed to kill people there is no argument for that. Most if not all mass shooters use them because of how lethal and how many people they can kill in 60 seconds. Why do people need weapons like this Ill never get. Ive never needed one for any purpose. My life wouldn't be better having one. Having my kid in my life is everything.

 

[moose eater]

The problem on this issue is that there is no middle ground, no compromise. It's either "take away all the (legal) guns" or "It's all a mental health issue and social media".

Yes, having guns be legal is going to generate collateral damage (see also cars, Aspirin, ...).
Yes, publicizing mass shooters in the media is going to brew more mass shooters. However, mass shootings only account for 0.1% of all gun deaths in the us.
The AR-15 is not an "assault rifle", it's not an automatic weapon. It's no different than many other rifles. It just happens to be one of the best rifles on the market, hence it is so popular and you hear about it all the time in the news. But it's the person who's pulling the trigger that's the real problem.

Legally, there is the question of the 2nd Amendment which clearly states "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." You can agree or disagree on whether that makes sense, but given how hard it is for a budget to get approved, a constitutional amendment is all but impossible especially one on such a polarizing issue.

There is no easy solution. You can't ban all weapons when the Constitution clearly states it violates a fundamental right and there are over 100 million firearms already in circulation.

There are so many people with health issues or people that are unstable emotionally and can just snap.
So trying to control it that way is just futile. Also, see red flag laws in certain states which are not at all effective.

That's why we are stuck with this shit. Better learn to live with it and get your CCW.

Cannamicably,

Thug

There's already migration among the once-dedicated persons on the no-compromise side of things.

I'm one, and I know of others. And I've had some exotic collections.

As the carnage continues to escalate, especially involving kids in their classrooms, but all of it inclusive at some level, some of us who were once hard-core weapons fondlers (especially as youngsters) are agreeing that we need to restrict some flow here somehow.

And it's not helpful for Uncle Sam to base it on who torches a doobie versus who pops the tab on a Budweiser. Those distinctions have been largely arbitrary and irrelevant. Like the house being on fire and someone instead taking the time to notice that you haven't washed your hot pads in a while..

 

[JKD]

Why do people need weapons like this Ill never get.

Culling feral pest species in open country.
- But only with stringent background checks, training, secure storage & registered owner/weapon rather than open availability. IMO.

 

[moose eater]

Culling feral pest species in open country.
- But only with stringent background checks, training, secure storage & registered owner/weapon rather than open availability. IMO.

People I know collected both the later-restricted ammunition and the weaponry for the day that might come involving a melt-down and government tyranny, the over-zealous drug war and similar, or crowd tyranny; take your pick.

And I don't agree that citizenry can't effectively stand up to large established well-armed militaries. The Taliban, the Viet Cong, Mujahedeen, Algerians, the Jews of Warsaw, the Sons of Liberty and many others could pose effective arguments via history, to varying degrees of success..

The fact is that if any of that misfortune and/or mayhem occurs, as one mercenary and weapons dealer I knew here years ago said, and as I've typed many times here in nearly identical endless waste-of-time debates, "there'll be all kinds of (useful hardware) laying on the ground next to dead bodies to pick up for free. What won't be available is soap, toothpaste, and toilet tissue. Stock up on that shit soon."

The Sons of Liberty and the Mujahedeen both functioned in part via captured weapons from their opposition in battle, the Mujahedeen initially using home-forged British .303 bolt action rifles made on portable hand forges from WWI and WWII blueprints in the mountains, taking down Soviet gunships with cables strung across narrow canyons they'd sucker them into with riders on horseback, then stripping them of their hardware.. They had serious balls.

There will always be functional options for those who truly intend to take whatever stand, and none of the current situation supports making such weaponry overly available to folks with too many screws loose, and youngsters with insufficient training or emotional development to handle life's hurdles.

The rest of it, the Bubbas talking about "preservation of liberty" as their big excuse, as they sit on their asses as repressive/oppressive bill after bill is passed, amounts to nothing more than testosterone-addled, self-aggrandizing fantasy and bullshit. (*and excuse-making)

 

[JKD]

I don't agree that citizenry can't effectively stand up to large established well-armed militaries. The Taliban, the Viet Cong, Mujahedeen, Algerians, the Jews of Warsaw, the Sons of Liberty and many others could pose effective arguments via history, to varying degrees of success.

I don’t agree they can’t either. Very solid examples.

What I haven’t agreed with is that if you start shooting at ‘the government’ they won’t start shooting back.

 

[moose eater]

I don’t agree they can’t either.
Very solid examples.
I don’t agree that if you start shooting at ‘the government’ they won’t start shooting back.

Yep, that's another delusion in this Country. That ANY government is going to give a green light to their over-throw, simply based on some Constitutional amendment or citizens' contract.

Reminds me of taking the Glick/Glik Decision to OCCUPY Wall St., with the intention of convincing NYPD's corrupt riot gear-clad goons that I had a legal right to act as a citizen journalist with or without press credentials, because a federal appeals court judge had ruled/said so.

There's proposals and theories that work well in the mind, and not always so well in reality.

"Tracers work both ways."

 

[Hammerhead]

Culling feral pest species in open country.
- But only with stringent background checks, training, secure storage & registered owner/weapon rather than open availability. IMO.

Use a 9mm carbine rifle. If you are a good shot a 22 LR will work. I don't see a need for anything designed to kill people in public hands. It's why we are were we are.

We all can see how the police handle public demonstrations.. People are delusional thinking they wouldn't kill us when ordered to. If being shot at they will return fire.

We all saw them use tear gas and violence on peaceful protesters to make way so Turd could take a photo op at a church.

 

[JKD]

Use a 9mm carbine rifle. If you are a good shot a 22 LR will work. I don't see a need for anything designed to kill people in public hands. It's why we are were we are.

Contractors shoot hogs from helicopters over Texas. In Australia it’s hogs & kangaroo, in New Zealand it’s feral deer & goats. Much more practical than a carbine in these circumstances - High numbers & quickly - the same reasons I agree they shouldn’t be readily available to everyone.

 

[RobFromTX]

I don't see a need for anything designed to kill people in public hands. It's why we are were we are.

The first mass shooting by a single person in the U.S was at a Lubys in Texas and it was with a Glock 17 and Ruger P89. 24 dead in under 10 minutes. They ALL can kill

 

[Hammerhead]

Contractors shooting hogs from helicopters over Texas. Over in Australia as well - Kangaroo also. Much more practical than a carbine in these circumstances - High numbers & quickly - the same reasons I agree they shouldn’t be readily available to everyone.

Im, sure there will be some need for a specific job. Hiring someone to do it would be the right choice.

 

[Hammerhead]

The first mass shooting by a single person in the U.S was at a Lubys in Texas and it was with a Glock 17 and Ruger P89. 24 dead in under 10 minutes. They ALL can kill

I seem to be repeating myself lol.

ALL GUNS KILL !!!! Not all guns were designed to kill people, not all guns can kill 20 people in under a min. Many can survive most handgun wounds. Most won't survive a .223 round.. Trying to equate the lethality is a common excuse.

 

[thugpoet]

There's already migration among the once-dedicated persons on the no-compromise side of things.

I'm one, and I know of others. And I've had some exotic collections.

As the carnage continues to escalate, especially involving kids in their classrooms, but all of it inclusive at some level, some of us who were once hard-core weapons fondlers (especially as youngsters) are agreeing that we need to restrict some flow here somehow.

And it's not helpful for Uncle Sam to base it on who torches a doobie versus who pops the tab on a Budweiser. Those distinctions have been largely arbitrary and irrelevant. Like the house being on fire and someone instead taking the time to notice that you haven't washed your hot pads in a while..

What would you do to address the situation given the constraints of the Constitution?

Background checks everyone agrees on. Still nothing gets done...

I honestly believe that a bare minimum of training and basic psychological evaluation on top of a background check should be the standard.

But even hardcore gun-controlling NY couldn't stop an 18year old with precedent from playing Call of Duty with a rifle in a supermarket. That's with Background checks, purchase restrictions and red flag gun laws.