What is better, no guns, or more guns?

[BeginnersMind]

2 hours ago, GG said:

 

Absolutely.

 

Make no mistake, having access to the guns with high capacity stock makes it much easier to perpetuate a mass shooting.  What it doesn't do is address the urge by these individuals to perpetuate mass killings.

 

See the answer above.  Having an easier access to the gun is not the motivation to go out and start shooting people.   

 

 

 

As I said before, the licensing and background is just one piece of this. But it’s a worthwhile one. 

[jrober38]

4 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

(For added clarity -- both sides are guilty of this. But the media only backs one of the horses in that race)

 

Nah. I'm just pointing out your spin and calling it out for what it is: partisan. You want to run from it or ignore the point, that's fine. It's on you.

 

I'm not running from anything.

 

You seem to be extremely disappointed that one of these guys was a clear cut terrorist who went out and murdered Latinos because he felt there were invading the country (where have we heard that before?).

 

You're acting like it's unfair one guy is being labelled a terrorist, and the other guy is mostly being labelled as a crazy person, because they have 5-6 years worth of clear signs of mental illness, and you're pissed about it. I don't know of many terrorists who kill their sister in their "terrorist attack". 

 

It's incredibly bizarre.

Edited August 6, 2019 by jrober38

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, jrober38 said:

 

I'm not running from anything.

 

You are -- by moving from something you said: One guy was a terrorist, the other guy was just a nut, to:

 

1 minute ago, jrober38 said:

 

You seem to be extremely disappointed that one of these guys was a clear cut terrorist who went out and murdered Latinos because he felt there were invading the country (where have we heard that before?).

 

Which is something I neither said nor believe or expressed. 

 

But you don't want to stay on topic, and you know what you wrote was indeed partisan spin -- so you run from it and try to make the conversation about something else entirely. 

 

1 minute ago, jrober38 said:

 

You're acting like it's unfair one guy is being labelled a terrorist, and the other guy is mostly being labelled as a crazy person, because they have 5-6 years worth of clear signs of mental illness, and you're pissed about it.

 

It's incredibly bizarre.

 

That's not what I'm doing. 

 

I'm pointing out your comment is partisan. It is. It's designed to keep the focus on partisan issues and not the real issue. That's exploiting the tragedies for your own partisan purposes. It's ugly and gross. 

 

But when you can't argue facts -- spin spin spin.

[DC Tom]

5 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

Exiled again proves he's not the sharpest tool in the drawer. I don't care about being mocked. 

 

Can confirm.  I mock DR all the time.  If he cares at all, he seems to enjoy it.

[jrober38]

2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

You are -- by moving from something you said: One guy was a terrorist, the other guy was just a nut, to:

 

 

Which is something I neither said nor believe or expressed. 

 

But you don't want to stay on topic, and you know what you wrote was indeed partisan spin -- so you run from it and try to make the conversation about something else entirely. 

 

 

That's not what I'm doing. 

 

I'm pointing out your comment is partisan. It is. It's designed to keep the focus on partisan issues and not the real issue. That's exploiting the tragedies for your own partisan purposes. It's ugly and gross. 

 

But when you can't argue facts -- spin spin spin.

 

GUN CONTROL IS CLEARLY A PARTISAN ISSUE.

 

One side for the most part wants common sense gun laws, and the other completely refuses to discuss the issue.

[Deranged Rhino]

1 minute ago, jrober38 said:

 

GUN CONTROL IS CLEARLY A PARTISAN ISSUE.

 

One side for the most part wants common sense gun laws, and the other completely refuses to discuss the issue.

 

Shootings are bi-partisan issues. They're crimes, committed against people of all partisan persuasions. 

 

They don't become partisan issues until the spin machine starts spinning and writing things like this:

 

39 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

Shooter #1 was a terrorist.

 

Shooter #2 was just a crazy guy with a gun.

 

Which was my point. Your spin here above is partisan. 

 

Thank you for admitting it. 

[jrober38]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Shootings are bi-partisan issues. They're crimes, committed against people of all partisan persuasions. 

 

They don't become partisan issues until the spin machine starts spinning and writing things like this:

 

 

Which was my point. Your spin here above is partisan. 

 

Thank you for admitting it. 

 

The partisanship is based off of the GOPs refusal to do anything about gun laws, and the fact that mass shootings continue to happen month after month, year after year. 

 

Doing nothing is clearly not an option, yet that's the GOP's stance and the vast majority of Americans don't agree with them on this issue. 

[Deranged Rhino]

5 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

Can confirm.  I mock DR all the time.  If he cares at all, he seems to enjoy it.

 

I grew up with four older brothers -- if I didn't like being mocked, I wouldn't have survived puberty. 

[row_33]

Just now, jrober38 said:

 

The partisanship is based off of the GOPs refusal to do anything about gun laws, and the fact that mass shootings continue to happen month after month, year after year. 

 

Doing nothing is clearly not an option, yet that's the GOP's stance and the vast majority of Americans don't agree with them on this issue. 

 

It doesn’t matter to either side, Obama got nothing down with Congress in his hip pocket

 

 

[Gary M]

1 minute ago, jrober38 said:

Doing nothing is clearly not an option, yet that's the GOP's stance and the vast majority of Americans don't agree with them on this issue. 

Maybe make murder illegal?

[Deranged Rhino]

5 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

The partisanship is based off of the GOPs refusal to do anything about gun laws,

 

The partisan spin I'm discussing is yours. The GOP didn't spin your words. You wrote them. You chose to diminish one of the shootings while elevating the other from a mere crime to "terrorism". You did this because you want to focus more on the partisan issues YOU care about: immigration, gun control, and anti-Trumpisms. 

 

But in reality -- both committed crimes with guns.

Both had political motivations based on their social media footprints.

 

And yet your spin allows you to ignore one in favor of the other because focusing on both would force an honest person, not a partisan, to admit that this is an issue that crosses the political aisle and whose causes are more nuanced than just "Trump is a monster!" 

 

It's dishonest to it's core... but you can't see it because, as you admitted, you're a partisan who's spinning. 

Edited August 6, 2019 by Deranged Rhino

[Big Gun]

33 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

The partisanship is based off of the GOPs refusal to do anything about gun laws, and the fact that mass shootings continue to happen month after month, year after year. 

 

Doing nothing is clearly not an option, yet that's the GOP's stance and the vast majority of Americans don't agree with them on this issue. 

What's your solution? 

[Taro T]

47 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

GUN CONTROL IS CLEARLY A PARTISAN ISSUE.

 

One side for the most part wants common sense gun laws, and the other completely refuses to discuss the issue.

 

Ah, yes, the call for "common sense" gun laws.  That phrase would carry more weight were most of the National stage politicians that liberals / progressives support not nut cases themselves.

 

And the "other side completely refuses to discuss the issue.".

Edited August 6, 2019 by Taro T

[Tiberius]

36 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

The partisan spin I'm discussing is yours. The GOP didn't spin your words. You wrote them. You chose to diminish one of the shootings while elevating the other from a mere crime to "terrorism". You did this because you want to focus more on the partisan issues YOU care about: immigration, gun control, and anti-Trumpisms. 

 

But in reality -- both committed crimes with guns.

Both had political motivations based on their social media footprints.

 

And yet your spin allows you to ignore one in favor of the other because focusing on both would force an honest person, not a partisan, to admit that this is an issue that crosses the political aisle and whose causes are more nuanced than just "Trump is a monster!" 

 

It's dishonest to it's core... but you can't see it because, as you admitted, you're a partisan who's spinning. 

But you have to admit that blaming video games for right wing terrorism is simply a right wing political spin 

[row_33]

4 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

But you have to admit that blaming video games for right wing terrorism is simply a right wing political spin 

 

It’s part of the sickness. A condo across from my office has a guy playing these games constantly, massive TV screen I can see clearly after sundown

 

This is totally dicked up.

 

[3rdnlng]

49 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

The partisan spin I'm discussing is yours. The GOP didn't spin your words. You wrote them. You chose to diminish one of the shootings while elevating the other from a mere crime to "terrorism". You did this because you want to focus more on the partisan issues YOU care about: immigration, gun control, and anti-Trumpisms. 

 

But in reality -- both committed crimes with guns.

Both had political motivations based on their social media footprints.

 

And yet your spin allows you to ignore one in favor of the other because focusing on both would force an honest person, not a partisan, to admit that this is an issue that crosses the political aisle and whose causes are more nuanced than just "Trump is a monster!" 

 

It's dishonest to it's core... but you can't see it because, as you admitted, you're a partisan who's spinning. 

Jrober is a liberal Canadian simply trying to keep you occupied debating nonsense with him in order to divert you from more important investigation and discussion. That's his MO the few times he has come down here. Ignore him.

[BeginnersMind]

32 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

It’s part of the sickness. A condo across from my office has a guy playing these games constantly, massive TV screen I can see clearly after sundown

 

This is totally dicked up.

 

 

A part. But young men are playing these games all around the world. 

 

The mass shootings are happening here. 

 

Maybe we can be kind to some people. Especially the loners posting here. 

[B-Man]

 

Link between mass shooters, absent fathers ignored by anti-gun activists.

 

 

 

 

 

EXCLUSIVE: Firearms Expert Says Dayton Shooter’s Weapon Was Illegally Modified.

The weapon, which was obtained legally, was modified illegally.

 

“If more gun control is what they want, how does this get stopped? What’s next? We just ban parts?”.

 

 

Indeed.

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[row_33]

10 minutes ago, BeginnersMind said:

 

A part. But young men are playing these games all around the world. 

 

The mass shootings are happening here. 

 

Maybe we can be kind to some people. Especially the loners posting here. 

 

 

 

the US has some fundamental problems that are not reflected in any other first world country

 

Good luck with all this

 

[Boatdrinks]

2 hours ago, jrober38 said:

 

I don't think it's a huge issue.

 

One guy wrote a manifesto and drove 10 hours to an area highly concentrated with Latinos, and proceeded to shoot a bunch of Latinos (including some others). This qualifies as terrorism. 

 

The other guy just seems like a crazy person. He bought a gun, got the biggest magazine he could find, and went into the entertainment district of Dayton and unloaded, killing his sister and other randoms.

 

Shooter #1 was a terrorist.

 

Shooter #2 was just a crazy guy with a gun.

 

The terrorist, regardless of their colour and religious beliefs, is always going to get the majority of the attention. 

 

 

That is partisan rhetoric as seen on CNN. These shooters were both terrorists. They both set out to shoot large numbers of people in a public place. One was shot down before he could kill even more than he did, or the Dayton toll would have probably exceeded El Paso. One shooter is deemed worse by a segment of the media because the other appears to have left - leaning tendencies. He is then given a pass as just crazy with an “ unclear motive “ but casually lumped in with the El Paso shooter ( much worse because - Trump supporter). They are both terrorists , end of story. 

1 hour ago, Tiberius said:

But you have to admit that blaming video games for right wing terrorism is simply a right wing political spin 

No it’s not. I believe the libs talked about it after Columbine. There’s no politics involved in suggesting video games or internet notoriety played some role. Most people don’t shoot others, regardless of their political “ side of the fence”. 

Edited August 6, 2019 by Boatdrinks

[B-Man]

WASHINGTON POST GLIBLY DISMISSES MENTAL ILLNESS AS CAUSE OF MASS SHOOTINGS

 

 

 

 

 

Trump Gets His Bipartisan Wish: McConnell Forms Gun-Law GOP Caucus

https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey/2019/08/06/trump-gets-bipartisan-wish-mcconnell-forms-gun-law-gop-caucus/

 

 

.

 

 

 

[Boatdrinks]

1 minute ago, B-Man said:

WASHINGTON POST GLIBLY DISMISSES MENTAL ILLNESS AS CAUSE OF MASS SHOOTINGS

 

 

 

 

 

Trump Gets His Bipartisan Wish: McConnell Forms Gun-Law GOP Caucus

https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey/2019/08/06/trump-gets-bipartisan-wish-mcconnell-forms-gun-law-gop-caucus/

 

 

.

 

 

 

Lol what a joke the WaPo is. Obviously anyone who commits a mass shooting has some kind of mental illness. But hey, let’s just blame it on Trump. He inspires the mentally stable to do unstable things! 

[dubs]

Seeing people on here defend the MSM is mind blowing.  I think we just start calling them, “flat earthers”. 

 

The second tragedy of these events (the first being the actual event) is that the vast majority of people, if not everyone, in this country want to see these things stop. Reasonable people can disagree on how that should be done, but the level of vitriol and counterproductive shouting immediately causes people to get on the defensive and dig in.  Leading that downward spiral is the media and many opportunistic politicians. Either they are simply stupid and don’t realize what this does, or perhaps that’s their intention, to create perpetual agitation?  Keeps eyes on the news and gives politicians things to rail about. 

 

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

6 hours ago, jrober38 said:

 

The partisanship is based off of the GOPs refusal to do anything about gun laws, and the fact that mass shootings continue to happen month after month, year after year. 

 

Doing nothing is clearly not an option, yet that's the GOP's stance and the vast majority of Americans don't agree with them on this issue. 

 

Amend the Constitution, and then come try to take them.

 

You want to know what mass casualty events really look like?  Start trying to criminalize certain types of guns, and trying to seize them.

 

The GOP is representing the interests of these constituents, and upholding the Constitution.  That’s their job.  It’s why they were elected.

Edited August 6, 2019 by TakeYouToTasker

[DC Tom]

5 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

 

Amend the Constitution, and then come try to take them.

 

You want to know what mass casualty events really look like?  Start trying to criminalize certain types of guns, and trying to seize them.

 

The GOP is representing the interests of these constituents, and upholding the Constitution.  That’s their job.  It’s why they were elected.

 

Less angrily...there's a Second Amendment that supersedes any law Congress passes.  Democrats want to pretend it simply doesn't exist.  That's complete bull####.

 

You want to change the country, fine.  Start at the Constitutional level.  Good luck.

[jrober38]

10 hours ago, row_33 said:

 

It doesn’t matter to either side, Obama got nothing down with Congress in his hip pocket

 

 

 

I know.

 

Obama was pretty useless as a President. I think he ran with decent intentions but quickly fell into the black hole that is Washington D.C. politics.

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

5 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

I know.

 

Obama was pretty useless as a President. I think he ran with decent intentions but quickly fell into the black hole that is Washington D.C. politics.

It's been said that his intention was to fundamentally transform America, and that seems accurate.  Whether or not his intentions were decent is squarely in the eye of the beholder, 

[jrober38]

9 hours ago, pop gun said:

What's your solution? 

 

- Establish a  two tiered Federal Licensing system. 

- Tier 1 is for current gun owners (Possession License). You get to keep ALL of your weapons, however you cannot acquire new ones without a Tier 2 License. 

- Tier 2 is for future gun owners (Acquisition License). You can purchase weapons. 

- To get an Acquisition License to purchase firearms, applicants need to pass a written test that focuses on laws and theory, as well as a practical test that demonstrates proper gun safety and good practices for transporting and storing firearms. Have it run by vets or former police. 

- Once the test is passed, applicants submit themselves to an extensive background check, and have to provide numerous references as part of an extensive background check. 

- If their application is successful, Acquisition License holders can buy rifles, shotguns, handguns, semi auto rifles. 

- Acquisition License Renews every 5 years, with a fresh background check. If not renewed, you default to Possession License. 

- Gun show and private sales of weapons are illegal. You'd need to use a registered gun supplier who would intermediate the background check and verify that the purchaser has a proper license. 

 

Potential Add Ons:

- Military style "accessories" like silencers, pistol grips, drum magazines, etc, are made illegal. 

- Weapon capacities are imposed and limited to 10 rounds in any weapon. High capacity magazines are illegal. 

[BeginnersMind]

22 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

- Establish a  two tiered Federal Licensing system. 

- Tier 1 is for current gun owners (Possession License). You get to keep ALL of your weapons, however you cannot acquire new ones without a Tier 2 License. 

- Tier 2 is for future gun owners (Acquisition License). You can purchase weapons. 

- To get an Acquisition License to purchase firearms, applicants need to pass a written test that focuses on laws and theory, as well as a practical test that demonstrates proper gun safety and good practices for transporting and storing firearms. Have it run by vets or former police. 

- Once the test is passed, applicants submit themselves to an extensive background check, and have to provide numerous references as part of an extensive background check. 

- If their application is successful, Acquisition License holders can buy rifles, shotguns, handguns, semi auto rifles. 

- Acquisition License Renews every 5 years, with a fresh background check. If not renewed, you default to Possession License. 

- Gun show and private sales of weapons are illegal. You'd need to use a registered gun supplier who would intermediate the background check and verify that the purchaser has a proper license. 

 

Potential Add Ons:

- Military style "accessories" like silencers, pistol grips, drum magazines, etc, are made illegal. 

- Weapon capacities are imposed and limited to 10 rounds in any weapon. High capacity magazines are illegal. 

 

Who would be left to shoot deep state soldiers in defense of freedom?

[TakeYouToTasker]

2 hours ago, jrober38 said:

 

- Establish a  two tiered Federal Licensing system. 

- Tier 1 is for current gun owners (Possession License). You get to keep ALL of your weapons, however you cannot acquire new ones without a Tier 2 License. 

- Tier 2 is for future gun owners (Acquisition License). You can purchase weapons. 

- To get an Acquisition License to purchase firearms, applicants need to pass a written test that focuses on laws and theory, as well as a practical test that demonstrates proper gun safety and good practices for transporting and storing firearms. Have it run by vets or former police. 

- Once the test is passed, applicants submit themselves to an extensive background check, and have to provide numerous references as part of an extensive background check. 

- If their application is successful, Acquisition License holders can buy rifles, shotguns, handguns, semi auto rifles. 

- Acquisition License Renews every 5 years, with a fresh background check. If not renewed, you default to Possession License. 

- Gun show and private sales of weapons are illegal. You'd need to use a registered gun supplier who would intermediate the background check and verify that the purchaser has a proper license. 

 

Potential Add Ons:

- Military style "accessories" like silencers, pistol grips, drum magazines, etc, are made illegal. 

- Weapon capacities are imposed and limited to 10 rounds in any weapon. High capacity magazines are illegal. 

 

100% unConstitutional.

 

Can’t be done by law.

 

”Shall not be infringed”

 

Start there. Learn how to Amend the US Constitution.

 

Then, when that’s failed, pound sand.

[Doc Brown]

13 hours ago, row_33 said:

 

It doesn’t matter to either side, Obama got nothing down with Congress in his hip pocket

 

 

 

3 hours ago, jrober38 said:

 

I know.

 

Obama was pretty useless as a President. I think he ran with decent intentions but quickly fell into the black hole that is Washington D.C. politics.

Dems only had a supermajority for 72 days and they never had 60 Senators that would pass any gun control legislation.  Dems like Max Baucus of Montana made any effort fruitless.  They got the ACA through though in that short window.

[row_33]

2 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

 

Dems only had a supermajority for 72 days and they never had 60 Senators that would pass any gun control legislation.  Dems like Max Baucus of Montana made any effort fruitless.  They got the ACA through though in that short window.

 

There is no interest in banning weapons, a lot of empty posturing for a week or two after the next tragedy, then fiddle-de-deeeee

 

the rest of the world can’t even begin to fathom why these weapons are defended as some kind of autonomy

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Westside]

On 8/5/2019 at 9:00 PM, jrober38 said:

 

Anyway you define it, this is something the US sees happen far more than any other developed country. 

 

The notion that bad guys will always find guns simply doesn't ring true with any consistency anywhere else in the developed world.

 

My opinion is that if you make it harder to get guns, these loner, lone wolf shooters with no social skills usually have no idea how to find the black market let alone purchase a high powered rifle there. The black market is a place for career criminals to find weapons, but I don't think the type of deranged psycho who wants to kill a bunch of random people will have any success buying illegal weapons there, otherwise you'd see these things happen way more in other developed countries around the world. 

I wonder what percentage of mass shootings are in blue states compared to red states? 

NY, chi, Detroit, Baltimore, Gary Indiana, LA. If you take away these democratic run ***** holes, I wonder how much your crime statistics improve?

[/dev/null]

1 hour ago, westside2 said:

I wonder what percentage of mass shootings are in blue states compared to red states? 

NY, chi, Detroit, Baltimore, Gary Indiana, LA. If you take away these democratic run ***** holes, I wonder how much your crime statistics improve?

 

According to Wiki, the 25 deadliest mass shootings in the US are

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States

 

Mass shootings since the "Assault Weapons" ban sunset in the early 2000s:

 

Swing state mass shootings

Orlando, FL
Parkland, FL
Pittsburgh, PA

 

Red state mass shootings
Sutherland Springs, TX
El Paso, Tx
Santa Fe, TX

Geneva County, AL

 

Blue state mass shootings

Las Vegas, NV
Virginia Tech
Sandy Hook, CT
San Ysidro, CA
San Bernadino, CA
Binghamton, NY
Aurora, CO
Washington Navy Yard
Thousand Oaks, CA
Virginia Beach, VA

Edited August 7, 2019 by /dev/null

[Westside]

38 minutes ago, /dev/null said:

 

According to Wiki, the 25 deadliest mass shootings in the US are

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States

 

Mass shootings since the "Assault Weapons" ban sunset in the early 2000s:

 

Swing state mass shootings

Orlando, FL
Parkland, FL
Pittsburgh, PA

 

Red state mass shootings
Sutherland Springs, TX
El Paso, Tx
Santa Fe, TX

Geneva County, AL

 

Blue state mass shootings

Las Vegas, NV
Virginia Tech
Sandy Hook, CT
San Ysidro, CA
San Bernadino, CA
Binghamton, NY
Aurora, CO
Washington Navy Yard
Thousand Oaks, CA
Virginia Beach, VA

Thanks /dev/null

[plenzmd1]

1 hour ago, westside2 said:

Thanks /dev/null

and what does that list indicate to you?

[SoCal Deek]

7 hours ago, Doc Brown said:

 

Dems only had a supermajority for 72 days and they never had 60 Senators that would pass any gun control legislation.  Dems like Max Baucus of Montana made any effort fruitless.  They got the ACA through though in that short window.

The interesting fact is that they actually didn’t get Obamacare through in that window! You’ll recall that when Ted Kennedy died the good people of Massachusetts rose up and elected a republican just so that he could stop the ACA. So the Dem leadership did an end around and never brought the bill back to the floor for a vote, knowing it wouldn’t pass. A story most Americans forget.

[4merper4mer]

5 hours ago, row_33 said:

 

There is no interest in banning weapons, a lot of empty posturing for a week or two after the next tragedy, then fiddle-de-deeeee

 

the rest of the world can’t even begin to fathom why these weapons are defended as some kind of autonomy

 

 

 

 

 

 

To paraphrase Marv: The minute we start doing things to please the rest of the world we'll be sitting with them.

[B-Man]

Every time a politician tells us we must give up our rights,

 

they validate why we have those rights in the first place.

 

 

 

.