What is better, no guns, or more guns?

[SoCal Deek]

1 hour ago, Azalin said:

 

No, but the original source is still the major news outlets.

 

Unless facebook has their own field reporters and I've somehow missed that?

The major news outlets are no longer the original source for ANYTHING. All they do is grab stories from the internet blogs and spin them. Your age (I’m getting there too) is showing.

[B-Man]

 

 

MATT MARGOLIS: No, The United States Doesn’t Lead The World in Mass Shootings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Conflating “DO SOMETHING!” with effectuation of useful change is foolishness.

 

 

 

.

[3rdnlng]

Let there be no doubt that the Democrat Party survives on being able to wrap the Republican Party up in issues that the Democrats have no intention or desire to solve. They need the issues because they don't have the ability to actually govern. Their issues are the only thing that gives them a chance to be in power. At least the Republicans are oriented towards solving problems.

[row_33]

2 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

This emotionally on edge condition is not result of Donald Trump. If anything this is the result when half of the country refuses to accept the results of an election!

 

They still are bitter about 2000

[Boatdrinks]

6 hours ago, Tiberius said:

Honest question here. If this guy was yelling allah Akbar, your opinion would be completely different, though, right? You would not be trying to make it about lonelyness or the internet, it would be in a thread literally entitles "Islamic Terrorism" Where have we seen that? 

Probably ,(who said loneliness ? ) That’s your word meant to imply some type of empathy or sympathy for the perp, of which I have none. The reason for the difference would be that particular religion teaches that type of behavior to be honorable or even expected. Absolutely, yes my opinion would be completely different. Why wouldn’t my opinion be different if the guy yelled out a religion based statement.? This was  a heinous act , but not one driven by a religious ideology as far as I know. What are the factors then ? Yes I think the internet has created a lot of antisocial types. If their views and actions are warped enough, they want their fifteen minutes of internet infamy. It’s at least a contributing factor. 

Edited August 5, 2019 by Boatdrinks

[Azalin]

19 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

The major news outlets are no longer the original source for ANYTHING. All they do is grab stories from the internet blogs and spin them. Your age (I’m getting there too) is showing.

 

Considering this conversation is within the context of guns & mass shootings, are you really going to say that these events are presented by major news networks & print based off material gleaned from blogs?

 

There's still quite a bit of reporting done from the scene & and "as it happens". That's not to say that it isn't spun immediately, and I'm not denying the presence or impact of blogs. I just believe it to be inaccurate to say that major news outlets are no longer the original source for anything.

[row_33]

So we are reduced to Tibs setting up hypotheticals to feel superior, what a total heartless loser 

 

does he enjoy stunning house flies and then tearing a wing off so they spin in a circle and then eat the fly when it dies?

 

 

[SoCal Deek]

1 minute ago, Azalin said:

 

 

There's still quite a bit of reporting done from the scene & and "as it happens". That's not to say that it isn't spun immediately, and I'm not denying the presence or impact of blogs. I just believe it to be inaccurate to say that major news outlets are no longer the original source for anything.

This is a thread about gun violence. I can promise you that young people are not getting their news from Tom Brokaw. You can choose to believe me or not.

[row_33]

8 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

This is a thread about gun violence. I can promise you that young people are not getting their news from Tom Brokaw. You can choose to believe me or not.

 

original source is not the same as first glance source 

[SoCal Deek]

13 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

original source is not the same as first glance source 

I’m not sure what point you’re making 

[B-Man]

"The shooter in El Paso posted a manifesto online consumed by racist hate, in one voice our nation must condemn racism, bigotry and white supremacy.

 

These sinister ideologies must be defeated. Hate has no place in America." - @realDonaldTrump

 

 

 

Nothing Trump days will ever be enough because the left knows it’s charges are lies. The point has always been to silence him and you.

 

 

 

 

.

[row_33]

9 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

I’m not sure what point you’re making 

 

AP or WaPo gets the scoop, not likely a source for an iPhone user. That reader is usually viewing third-hand reports, does that help?

 

doesn’t mean the old guard with all its contacts and leakers is worthless 

[SoCal Deek]

1 minute ago, row_33 said:

 

AP or WaPo gets the scoop, not likely a source for an iPhone user. That reader is usually viewing third-hand reports, does that help?

 

doesn’t mean the old guard with all its contacts and leakers is worthless 

Thanks 

most millennials get 100% of their ‘news’ from their feed of choice on their phone..which are often laced with editorial pieces as opposed to straight news 

And I’d guess most shooters get their slanted version of their world from hate infested chat rooms. 

(For example it’s much the same way that I get my Bills news here. I don’t read the Buffalo News sports page.)

[Azalin]

51 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

This is a thread about gun violence.

 

I believe I just said that very thing, but you decided not to quote that part of my post.

 

 

 

[Bray Wyatt]

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

"The shooter in El Paso posted a manifesto online consumed by racist hate, in one voice our nation must condemn racism, bigotry and white supremacy.

 

These sinister ideologies must be defeated. Hate has no place in America." - @realDonaldTrump

 

 

 

Nothing Trump days will ever be enough because the left knows it’s charges are lies. The point has always been to silence him and you.

 

 

 

 

.

 

Well of course he would say that! He isn't going to just come out and say he is a racist and he is responsible!!  Wake up Sheeple!!! - CNN probably

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

"The shooter in El Paso posted a manifesto online consumed by racist hate, in one voice our nation must condemn racism, bigotry and white supremacy.

 

These sinister ideologies must be defeated. Hate has no place in America." - @realDonaldTrump

 

 

 

Nothing Trump days will ever be enough because the left knows it’s charges are lies. The point has always been to silence him and you.

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

...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....

[IDBillzFan]

5 hours ago, Buffalo_Gal said:

I mentioned to hubby (and a few friends) this past weekend that the gun-grabbers make me want to get a pistol license, only problem is I'd actually have to shoot a gun. Hubby assured me I do not have to shoot a gun in order to get, or keep, a pistol permit license in NYS. And then he immediately said to me we can go to the shooting range together.

 

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.

 

[3rdnlng]

3 hours ago, bdutton said:

 

In the early 1970's there was a shift in treating mental illness with incarceration in mental institutions to prescribing powerful psychotropic drugs on an out patient process.

 

The media has become increasingly polarized along political extremes.  Very little if any honest news organizations exist because it isn't profitable to do any honest reporting of news.

 

 

Violence in media has increased substantially (video games, TV, Movies and even in radio).  You used to get an X rating if you had any nudity or language in movies. 

 

With the introduction of cable/satellite tv, the reach of the FCC to control content, and an increased tolerance by consumers for violence and language means violent content is much more prevalent leading to a desensitizing to the violence.

 

The Internet (an with it social media) has created a sense of anonymity to human interactions online.  We would almost never say some of the things we say on an internet forum like this to people face to face.  This in turn creates the false sense of superiority over people online.  Both sides of the political/social spectrum are guilty of this.

 

Also, the term of mass shooting is frequently misused (for political reasons) by the media.  More people are killed in Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit... etc... on any given weekend that there are with the rare (albeit increasing) occurrence of a mass shooting like the one of El Paso.

 

The only thing that has never changed is the function of a firearm.  You could buy an AR-15 and a thousand rounds of ammo for it over mail order and have it delivered to your home with no background checks and no waiting period before the 1968 Firearm act.  Yet the number of mass shootings with rifles (or in general) in those days was extremely rare.

 

The problem is/was never about the availability and function of any given type of firearm.

 

 

This is not true.  The .223 was designed to be lightweight and accurate.  The ability to carry more ammo was the purpose.  Also, one of the complaints about using the .223 'ball' ammo (full metal jacket) in places like Mogadishu was that despite direct hits to the torso the bullet would put a clean hole through the target.  The fighters in Mogadishu were hopped up on drugs and it would take 2-3 hits before they would stay down.  A lot of the special ops would buy their own hollow points to increase the effectiveness (despite being against the geneva convention).

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.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

57 minutes 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.

 

 

...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....

Edited August 5, 2019 by OldTimeAFLGuy

[Buffalo_Gal]

57 minutes 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.

 

Well, a class is required to get licensed, so if I do it, I would be taking a class.
 

[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."