What is better, no guns, or more guns?

[DC Tom]

46 minutes ago, 3rdnlng said:

Are hollow points illegal in all USA states? Would an active shooter worry if they were illegal? My understanding that I posted goes back to the Vietnam War. That was right about the time the Forces were switching from the M-14 to the M-16. The M-16 was lighter and so was its ammunition. Its effectiveness was that upon impact the bullet would change course or even fragment causing possible injury to multiple organs. It's ineffectiveness was that the weapon was often used in virtual jungle and if the bullet hit minor brush or a twig it could be knocked off line.

 

The first part of your post I agree with.

 

The M16's ineffectiveness was also that it was hot garbage in its first iteration.  

 

But @bdutton is right.  US infantry doctrine since before WWII has stressed firepower in a suppressive role (rifles have never been the killing weapons on modern battlefields).  That requires a greater ammo load, which favored the lighter .223 round (since you can carry more of them).  Stopping power was a secondary consideration, and the unstable nature of the 5.56mm round that caused tumbling and ruptures was more a side effect than an intended one (and arguably against international law, as well.)

[Chef Jim]

1 hour ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

While I'm sure your husband is correct on the last point, the truth is that the very, very, very first thing you should do is take a local gun safety class. They're usually a few hours, and provide you with the basics you need to know about handling a gun; how to hold it, how to store it, how to load it, how to fire it, etc.

 

The class we took ended with them having my wife fire a .22, then a 9mm, then a .40, etc. She didn't need a gun. She just needed to know how to handle the ones I have in the house.

 

Plus, you're in a class with other newbies, so you're in good company.

 

Just a suggestion.

 

 

We never needed a gun. Then we moved to Oakland and our house was broken in to the first year we loved there. Now we have two guns. We regularly went to the range in Oakland to stay sharp. We’ve been back in OC for two years now and are going to the range Saturday for the first time.  Not to stay sharp but to have fun. I had to ask about ammo.  If we shoot it all there no background check. If we take it home we need a background check. I’m not sure I have a problem with that.  You fail the background check you can’t have ammo. All depends on what a fail looks like. 

[/dev/null]

2 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

I had to ask about ammo.  If we shoot it all there no background check. If we take it home we need a background check. I’m not sure I have a problem with that.  You fail the background check you can’t have ammo. All depends on what a fail looks like. 

 

if you fail the background check, can I have your leftover ammo? ?

 

[IDBillzFan]

30 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

...wonder how many of the murderous preadtors are duly licensed and legal ( I have no idea)?.....OR...what are the legal parameters/requirements  to purchase a shotgun or rifle for (alleged) hunting?...are there minimal background checks for those?...not trying to be a smart azz, because I honestly do not know.......gotta believe that if shooters/murderers are 16, 17 , or 18, the "black market easily prevails....so how would THAT be controlled?...good luck....

 

It's state by state, but the states with the tightest laws (like CA) still have problems...and plenty of them. CA is a mess, and you can barely buy a Nerf gun at this point.

 

While I don't have answers, what I do know is that if someone wants to kill a bunch of people, our laws aren't going to stop them from doing it. I also know that what happened in Dayton is what Chicago calls "just another weekend," and until elected officials are able to stop using events like this as a fundraiser, they'll never be able to come to terms with ways to fix it.

 

14 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

We never needed a gun. Then we moved to Oakland and our house was broken in to the first year we loved there. Now we have two guns. We regularly went to the range in Oakland to stay sharp. We’ve been back in OC for two years now and are going to the range Saturday for the first time.  Not to stay sharp but to have fun. I had to ask about ammo.  If we shoot it all there no background check. If we take it home we need a background check. I’m not sure I have a problem with that.  You fail the background check you can’t have ammo. All depends on what a fail looks like. 

 

I used to go to OC Indoor Range in Brea, which was pretty convenient (relative to going out toward Riverside/Ontario for outdoor ranges). I never bought my ammo there because it was cheaper to buy what we needed at Big 5, and you can take home what you don't shoot.

[Chef Jim]

22 minutes ago, /dev/null said:

 

if you fail the background check, can I have your leftover ammo? ?

 

 

We fail the background I assume there will be no ammo to be left over. 

10 minutes ago, IDBillzFan said:

 

It's state by state, but the states with the tightest laws (like CA) still have problems...and plenty of them. CA is a mess, and you can barely buy a Nerf gun at this point.

 

While I don't have answers, what I do know is that if someone wants to kill a bunch of people, our laws aren't going to stop them from doing it. I also know that what happened in Dayton is what Chicago calls "just another weekend," and until elected officials are able to stop using events like this as a fundraiser, they'll never be able to come to terms with ways to fix it.

 

 

I used to go to OC Indoor Range in Brea, which was pretty convenient (relative to going out toward Riverside/Ontario for outdoor ranges). I never bought my ammo there because it was cheaper to buy what we needed at Big 5, and you can take home what you don't shoot.

 

We actually bought our ammo online and had it delivered. Never bought it at the range. It was a 20 minute winding drive to the range in the woods. We arrived one morning 

 

Me: Where’s the ammo?

Wife:  Awwww *****

Me:  I’ll be back....

[3rdnlng]

43 minutes ago, Chef Jim said:

 

We never needed a gun. Then we moved to Oakland and our house was broken in to the first year we loved there. Now we have two guns. We regularly went to the range in Oakland to stay sharp. We’ve been back in OC for two years now and are going to the range Saturday for the first time.  Not to stay sharp but to have fun. I had to ask about ammo.  If we shoot it all there no background check. If we take it home we need a background check. I’m not sure I have a problem with that.  You fail the background check you can’t have ammo. All depends on what a fail looks like. 

TMI

[Koko78]

2 hours ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

 

...Trump is responsible for the Dayton shooter who was a head case in HS, graduating in 2013.......this gang is the epitome of foment and vitriol.......trying to use these tragedies for political gain redefines vile and repugnant....

 

There would have been no 'rape lists' in 2013ish by this nutjob, if Trump hadn't something something OrangeManBad.

[jrober38]

6 hours ago, GG said:

Crazy has been around since humans started walking upright

Guns have been around for centuries

Mass shootings have been rising in the last 30 years

 

What has changed?

 

Mass shootings required easy access to high powered weapons capable of a high rate of fire. 

 

50 years ago your average American didn't own an AR-15. 

 

The Dayton shooting lasted 24 seconds before police killed the gunman. In that time he killed 9 and injured many more. 

 

Even when there are good guys with guns, these weapons are capable of extreme carnage in a very short amount of time. 

[B-Man]

 

 

But those aren't the right kind of "shootings for the media/Left

 

 

Why is that ?

 

 

.

[Q-baby!]

3 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

But those aren't the right kind of "shootings for the media/Left

 

 

Why is that ?

 

 

.

Because you are an idiot? 

[jrober38]

15 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

But those aren't the right kind of "shootings for the media/Left

 

 

Why is that ?

 

 

.

 

I don't think the media has a preference.

 

Unfortunately these mass shootings are made a big deal of because 1. they really only happen with regularity in America and 2. if a bunch of civilians getting mowed down in Walmart can't assist in enacting change, nothing will.

 

After Sandy Hook I realized nothing will ever change. 20 kids mowed down by a complete psychopath and nothing changed. 

[B-Man]

Just now, jrober38 said:

 

I don't think the media has a preference.

 

Unfortunately these mass shootings are made a big deal of because 1. they really only happen with regularity in America and 2. if a bunch of civilians getting mowed down in Walmart can't assist in enacting change, nothing will.

 

After Sandy Hook I realized nothing will ever change. 20 kids mowed down by a complete psychopath and nothing changed. 

 

 

Thank you for your response.

 

But you really only explained why the mass murders are covered and not why the large number of citizens being murdered EVERY weekend are not.

 

Even the El Paso coverage is being handled differently than Dayton.

 

There is a preference, if you will, to how the media covers these events.

 

 

 

I would also point out that your concern and respect for these innocent victims is easy to see by your posts and I certainly respect that.

 

However I wouldn't waste time on "solutions" that are simply impossible to bring about.  Guns in the U,S. will never be completely outlawed and even if they were, there is no practical way to retrieve the more than 200 million that are out there.

 

 

.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

29 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

But those aren't the right kind of "shootings for the media/Left

 

 

Why is that ?

 

 

.

 

 

perhsps because they are (sadly) the norm and not heinous and salacious enough for the "candidates (COUGH)" to brand the President racist and a white supremacist.....a despicable, sick bunch politicizing mass murders.....

[jrober38]

9 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

Thank you for your response.

 

But you really only explained why the mass murders are covered and not why the large number of citizens being murdered EVERY weekend are not.

 

Even the El Paso coverage is being handled differently than Dayton.

 

There is a preference, if you will, to how the media covers these events.

 

 

 

I would also point out that your concern and respect for these innocent victims is easy to see by your posts and I certainly respect that.

 

However I wouldn't waste time on "solutions" that are simply impossible to bring about.  Guns in the U,S. will never be completely outlawed and even if they were, there is no practical way to retrieve the more than 200 million that are out there.

 

 

.

 

Of course there's a preference. There's a preference in every aspect of news, because these companies pay the bills by generating ad revenue that comes from ratings. 

 

Trying to enact gun law change based off what happens in Chicago would be the most futile thing imaginable because middle America couldn't care less. 

 

When someone walks into Walmart on a Friday evening and blows away 22 people and wounds as many more with an assault rifle, middle America sure as hell can relate to that because that's where they shop.

 

Just because Chicago doesn't get any coverage doesn't mean the people asking for gun law changes don't care. The issue I guess is that when mass shootings tragically do happen, you need something as relatable as what happened on the weekend for people to stop and think that it could have been them.

 

And lastly, I don't think banning guns is a solution because as you said it'll never happen. With that said, a Federal registry and licensing system needs to be established where only license holders who have had their background extensively checked and passed a rigorous gun safety course can purchase firearms. That won't stop all shootings, but if it stops even one mass killing, I think it's a no brainer that it will have all been worth it. 

 

Doing nothing is not an option. Something has to be done and the GOP can't just sit around and pretend these shootings aren't happening. 

Edited August 6, 2019 by jrober38

[jrober38]

8 minutes ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

 

perhsps because they are (sadly) the norm and not heinous and salacious enough for the "candidates (COUGH)" to brand the President racist and a white supremacist.....a despicable, sick bunch politicizing mass murders.....

 

They're not relatable.

 

Chicago has about 2.7 million people, or 0.8% of the country's population.

 

I don't have exact numbers, but I imagine that tens of millions, if not 100 million Americans shop at Walmart at least once a month. 

 

When people die in Chicago, no one cares because it'll never affect them because they don't live there.

 

When people get massacred in Walmart on a Friday night, it's a completely different story.

[Buffalo_Gal]

4 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

Of course there's a preference. There's a preference in every aspect of news, because these companies pay the bills by generating ad revenue that comes from ratings. 

 

Trying to enact gun law change based off what happens in Chicago would be the most futile thing imaginable because middle America couldn't care less. 

 

When someone walks into Walmart on a Friday evening and blows away 22 people and wounds as many more with an assault rifle, middle America sure as hell can relate to that because that's where they shop.

 

Just because Chicago doesn't get any coverage doesn't mean the people asking for gun law changes don't care. The issue I guess is that when mass shootings tragically do happen, you need something as relatable as what happened on the weekend for people to stop and think that it could have been them.

 

And lastly, I don't think banning guns is a solution because as you said it'll never happen. With that said, a Federal registry and licensing system needs to be established where only license holders who have had their background extensively checked and passed a rigorous gun safety course can purchase firearms. That won't stop all shootings, but if it stops even one mass killing, I think it's a no brainer that it will have all been worth it. 

 

Doing nothing is not an option. Something has to be done and the GOP can't just sit around and pretend these shootings aren't happening. 

 

What do you expect to happen? Evil doesn't obey laws. More laws only serve to chip away at the rights of law abiding citizens. 

[jrober38]

1 minute ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

 

What do you expect to happen? Evil doesn't obey laws. More laws only serve to chip away at the rights of law abiding citizens. 

 

This is BS.

There are evil people all over the world, in every developed county, and the US is the only one with a mass shooting epidemic.

Edited August 6, 2019 by jrober38

[Buffalo_Gal]

11 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

This is BS.

There are evil people all over the world, in every developed county, and the US is the only one with a mass shooting epidemic.

 

An epidemic? Hyperbole much?

 

 

[jrober38]

Just now, Buffalo_Gal said:

 

An epidemic? Hyperbole much?

 

 

 

Nope. No hyperbole whatsoever. 

 

The US is the only country in the developed world where this happens on a regular basis. 

 

There have been 248 incidents in the US in 2019 where 4 or more people have been wounded or killed in a shooting.

 

It's only August 5th.

 

That's over 8 per week on average.

[DC Tom]

10 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

Nope. No hyperbole whatsoever. 

 

The US is the only country in the developed world where this happens on a regular basis. 

 

There have been 248 incidents in the US in 2019 where 4 or more people have been wounded or killed in a shooting.

 

It's only August 5th.

 

That's over 8 per week on average.

 

Again, that is entirely dependent on your definition of "mass shooting."