19 Children and 2 Adults Killed In Texas Elementary School Mass Shooting.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Just now, GoAU said:

Because that’s where it has to ultimately lead.  Starts with high-cap mags and semi auto, then level actions and revolvers.  The left wants to erode firearm ownership to nothing, don’t try and sugarcoat it.  As the tool changes, then we need to “ban” more.  We will continue to do that, but without addressing the root cause, the results will not change.  
 

But what will happen is the 500k-3M (per the CDC) defensive firearm uses a year will be eliminated and more people will become helpless victims. 

This is fiction.  Again, straight out of the gun lobby playbook. 

There is no political will in this country to revoke the second amendment. 

Your argument is propaganda.

 

[TexasTiger 12,810]

2 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

This is fiction.  Again, straight out of the gun lobby playbook. 

There is no political will in this country to revoke the second amendment. 

Your argument is propaganda.

 

“But if we allow stop signs, soon cars won’t be allowed to travel at all!”

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Just now, GoAU said:

Just because you view something as reasonable does not make it so.  It’s a very subjective statement.  You try to force your views as reasonable, but clearly a lot of people disagree.  

There are several people here making the same argument, presenting you with the same facts.

So far, all you have is done is respond with the phony narratives from the gun lobby and, the cowardly gun culture.

YOU, yourself continue to further the real threat to gun ownership. 

[AUDynasty 585]

2 hours ago, GoAU said:

No, nor one is “resigning” to anything, but abandoning our Constitution and individual liberty is short sighted, lazy, and would also be ineffective.  
 

Regarding HR 8 - how exactly would private party sales be enforced without creating a national registry?  You are aware that these checks have failed on numerous occasions as well?   For example Hunter Biden….

The main problems with these “statistics is the intellectual dishonesty behind them.  Suicides, accidents, and defensive shootings are all lumped in.  Heck, even the term Mass Shooting is redefined frequently to fit a narrative. 
 

Banning AR-15s will fix nothing.  Go ahead and admit your intent will just be to ban all guns - whether one at a time or all at once, your end state doesn’t change. 

This rant and assigning the blame to the right is silly.  I will admit the dems have been for gun control for a long time, but also pathetically weak on enforcing laws already on the books, dealing with crime and securing the border.  If you want to save kids lives, how about getting tough on drugs again, securing our borders from the drug traffickers, and addressing the opioid and fentanyl crisis- you’d have a much bigger impact.  Look at the crime rates and left leaning areas when compared to the right and tell me who is protecting people more.   
 

All the cops I know are in favor of more, not less gun ownership.  But stop pretending like you care what the police say, the libs have been demonizing them  for years.  
 

“Military style” is pandering with political motive.  Any firearm can create wounds of that type.  As a matter of fact hunting rifles or shotguns at that range could produce wound just as, and likely more, significant.   
 

 

In what way did I say I was advocating to ban all guns? I was just proposing the following:

• Ban AR-15 guns
• Universal background check
• Gun control

Your assumption that I'd jump to such an extreme position is unwarranted as I have stated nothing like it. But if you want to jump to that position, I'd assume that you also are in a belief where these deaths are just a price to pay to protect the 2nd amendment rights. Would that be fair? 

The point is... we can't just sit around and twiddle our thumbs. I agree we absolutely have to fund and support the expansion of mental health services, but we also have to do away with guns that serve nothing but to produce utter and complete bloodsheds. Guns should serve as self-defense and for the sport of hunting (as much as I don't like shooting at wild animals), and nothing else.

The inaction is just depravity especially as other posters have pointed out that we're the only "superpower" who has this problem. 288 mass shootings in 145 days in 2022. That's like two mass shootings everyday!!! 

We shouldn't be in a society where being in a wrong place and wrong time can cost your life. 

Edited May 25, 2022 by AUDynasty

[AU9377 4,913]

1 hour ago, GoAU said:

The 2004 AWB was bovine manure then, and had no impact whatsoever.   
 

I do agree that party lines cause way too many issues and is polarizing society.  The constituents and the Constitution need to come first. 

The only group not willing to be reasonable seems to be the NRA and the Republicans on their payroll.  In what kind of America do you need a magazine that fires more than 10 rounds?  Your grandparents didn't need that, your parents didn't need that, yet for some reason the far right believes that this is a hill to die on. 

If there is no compromise, the point will be reached eventually that an over correction will occur and more guns will be banned than necessary.  All because of the stubborn refusal to be reasonable.

Why is it ok for it to be safer to raise kids in France than in the United States? Why do people in the U.K. have a longer life expectancy and more access to health care than citizens of the United States?

How does this chart make sense to anyone?

Edited May 25, 2022 by AU9377

[GoAU 1,599]

18 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Then how have all these Western European countries managed to live for decades with various regulations and restrictions allowing for gun ownership but not banning them?  There is nothing inherent in *some* kind of gun regulation that could make it a lot harder for people to pull something like this off that has to "ultimately lead" to a total ban. 

“Mangaged to live” in Western Europe is not the standard I choose to live with.   If it works for you, great - you can live to that standard here.  If you want everyone on that standard you can go there.  
 

Firearm ownership in Europe is restricted for the very wealthy.  Here, that would be called a racist system, no?

1 hour ago, aubiefifty said:

it should break everyone hearts but some are more angry they might lose a right to carry certain weapons

I can walk and chew bubble gum.  It is possible to feel sorry for what happened and not throw out the rights of a nation in the process. 

1 hour ago, icanthearyou said:

Can you be anymore disingenuous?  This is an offensive weapon, not a defensive one.  It's sole purpose is to be the most efficient killing machine readily available. 

To inject such a weapon into society is irresponsible, cruel, unnecessary. 

A firearm is just a tool.  They are not offensive or defensive.  It is all in how it is used. 

17 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

This is fiction.  Again, straight out of the gun lobby playbook. 

There is no political will in this country to revoke the second amendment. 

Your argument is propaganda.

 

Not true.  To limit it to “hunting rifles and shotguns” is just a middle step.  Even if it weren’t, it has the same result.  

14 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

There are several people here making the same argument, presenting you with the same facts.

So far, all you have is done is respond with the phony narratives from the gun lobby and, the cowardly gun culture.

YOU, yourself continue to further the real threat to gun ownership. 

The “regulars” in this forum, thank God, are not the voice of reason and common sense for the nation.  It’s an echo chamber of mostly leftists.  I just enjoy the company…..

[icanthearyou 4,462]

A civil, peaceful, prosperous society will have no gun restrictions, open carry for all, plenty of options in Kevlar clothing?  Don't forget plenty of innocent dead.  Helps when you can efficiently kill a dozen or more within seconds.

A gun culture is a bully mentality, cowardly, grounded in the idea that might makes right.  It is in no way civil.

There is a big difference between gun rights and, a gun culture.

[SaltyTiger 7,763]

12 hours ago, AU9377 said:

An 18 year old kid should not be able to walk in a gun shop leave with 2 of these. 

There is absolutely no chance that the men who wrote the constitution and included the 2nd Amendment contemplated this country being the kind of place where this happens over and over and over and over and over and over again.

Well said

[icanthearyou 4,462]

2 minutes ago, GoAU said:

“Mangaged to live” in Western Europe is not the standard I choose to live with.   If it works for you, great - you can live to that standard here.  If you want everyone on that standard you can go there.  
 

Firearm ownership in Europe is restricted for the very wealthy.  Here, that would be called a racist system, no?

I can walk and chew bubble gum.  It is possible to feel sorry for what happened and not throw out the rights of a nation in the process. 

A firearm is just a tool.  They are not offensive or defensive.  It is all in how it is used. 

Not true.  To limit it to “hunting rifles and shotguns” is just a middle step.  Even if it weren’t, it has the same result.  

The “regulars” in this forum, thank God, are not the voice of reason and common sense for the nation.  It’s an echo chamber of mostly leftists.  I just enjoy the company…..

Sad that you feel this is how you must derive your safety and security.  More sad for those suffering for your insecurities.

[I_M4_AU 7,768]

33 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

This is fiction.  Again, straight out of the gun lobby playbook. 

There is no political will in this country to revoke the second amendment. 

Your argument is propaganda.

 

 

 

[TitanTiger 20,471]

13 minutes ago, GoAU said:

“Mangaged to live” in Western Europe is not the standard I choose to live with.   If it works for you, great - you can live to that standard here.  If you want everyone on that standard you can go there.  

You pick the oddest, most pedantic things to hang a hat on. 

You said that total gun bans are inevitable.  Somehow Western European countries have managed to put regulations in place that have created societies far safer from gun violence, especially mass shootings, than ours without total gun bans.  How is that possible given your assertion?

 

13 minutes ago, GoAU said:

Firearm ownership in Europe is restricted for the very wealthy.  Here, that would be called a racist system, no?

Link?

 

 

[AU9377 4,913]

2 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

 

 

You are suggesting that God approves of people owning assault rifles to use on fellow Americans?

[icanthearyou 4,462]

2 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

 

 

His personal opinion hardly represents political will. 

However, if the gun lobby, the gun culture, keeps going,,,  that will, will come to fruition. 

 

 

[icanthearyou 4,462]

8 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

You are suggesting that God approves of people owning assault rifles to use on fellow Americans?

Of course, Jesus only talked about swords.  Jesus loves the gun culture.

Misrepresenting the constitution, misrepresenting Jesus are fundamental.

Edited May 25, 2022 by icanthearyou

[I_M4_AU 7,768]

6 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

His personal opinion hardly represents political will. 

However, if the gun lobby, the gun culture, keeps going,,,  that will, will come to fruition. 

 

 

A typical response from you.  I prove your absolute statement to be false, as Michael Moore has been a political force in America for a long time, and deny he represents a political will.  Then you go on to threaten the very thing you said isn’t happening.  It is no wonder conservative don’t trust a work liberals like you say.

[TitanTiger 20,471]

Just now, I_M4_AU said:

A typical response from you.  I prove your absolute statement to be false, as Michael Moore has been a political force in America for a long time, and deny he represents a political will.  Then you go on to threaten the very thing you said isn’t happening.  It is no wonder conservative don’t trust a work liberals like you say.

You didn't prove his statement false.  "Political will" means broad consensus to do something, not the desires or aims of any individual or even a group of individuals.

And ICHY is right - there's an opportunity still open right now for conservatives and 2A advocates of good will to help craft sound, sane gun regulations and policy to greatly reduce the occurence of these mass shootings while preserving our rights.  But the more people ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ and say the same old thing about "existing laws" or "guns don't kill people do" and nothing changes, the more likely that consensus does emerge - and the conservatives and 2A folks will have so discredited themselves in the eyes of that consensus, it will go farther than they want it to go or that it should go.  It's not a threat.  It's just reality on how human nature and politics works.

[autigeremt 6,569]

1 hour ago, icanthearyou said:

No.  You complain yet, you oppose most reasonable solutions.  There is no threat to the constitution.  That is pure rhetoric.

You are lost my friend.  You have allowed emotions to replace your ability to genuinely consider.

I'm not lost....you are just an un-informed bystander who "thinks" he/she knows what I'm about. I'm just another regular citizen with NO power to change anything or recommend a solution. I've tried......we're all just pawns. 

Edited May 25, 2022 by autigeremt

[I_M4_AU 7,768]

32 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

You didn't prove his statement false.  "Political will" means broad consensus to do something, not the desires or aims of any individual or even a group of individuals.

She said there is NO political will which means; none.  There is at least some political will to abolish the 2nd amendment or Micheal Moore would not have said anything.

32 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

And ICHY is right - there's an opportunity still open right now for conservatives and 2A advocates of good will to help craft sound, sane gun regulations and policy to greatly reduce the occurence of these mass shootings while preserving our rights

There is an opportunity to work across the isle to get things done, but with Schumer calling for a vote in the Senate last night without discussion hoping for an emotional win, how are conservatives suppose to react to an open discussion?

Within hours of this horrific crime our President got on national TV and prayed for the children and parents which was great.  If he had stopped there he might have been able to pull of some kind of discussion.  But, no, he has to take advantage of the dead children by demanding *something* be done and make inappropriate jokes about deer wearing Kevlar.

How would universal background checks have prevented this tragedy?

What are *common sense* gun control laws and how do they differ from what we have now?

Would spending the COVID money allotted to schools for security at schools be a better deterrent then *common sense* gun control laws that are easily circumvented?

Where are these discussion in the public forum?  There isn’t, because the narrative is only one way;  taking the rights away from law abiding citizens to appease the left’s insatiable thirst for control over their fellow man. 

Edited May 25, 2022 by I_M4_AU

[autigeremt 6,569]

42 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

You pick the oddest, most pedantic things to hang a hat on. 

You said that total gun bans are inevitable.  Somehow Western European countries have managed to put regulations in place that have created societies far safer from gun violence, especially mass shootings, than ours without total gun bans.  How is that possible given your assertion?

 

Link?

 

 

Factsheet (vlaamsvredesinstituut.eu) 

[aubiefifty 16,702]

if people were honest most guns are toys to people and most of you know this even if you will not admit. the dirty little secret is many of you claim to think war is coming and even some of the nuts on your side are spewing this. you can protect a home with a pistol or a shotgun. you guys want to keep your right to play with guns while some those children were shot up so bad they were hamburger meat. they are having to use dna to identify some of those kids. how many years does it take to prove owning a gun will ever stop a mass shooting? how many have to know before you admit you might be wrong? how many more hundreds or thousands have to die before you can admit you might be wrong? guys the second amendment had more to do with whites protecting themselves from slaves. by far the largest population of people in the NE when all this happened were slaves. so many in fact the whites feared for their lives thus the domestic enemies thing. there are lots of articles on google if you dare to look.

[autigeremt 6,569]

Just now, aubiefifty said:

if people were honest most guns are toys to people and most of you know this even if you will not admit. the dirty little secret is many of you claim to think war is coming and even some of the nuts on your side are spewing this. you can protect a home with a pistol or a shotgun. you guys want to keep your right to play with guns while some those children were shot up so bad they were hamburger meat. they are having to use dna to identify some of those kids. how many years does it take to prove owning a gun will ever stop a mass shooting? how many have to know before you admit you might be wrong? how many more hundreds or thousands have to die before you can admit you might be wrong? guys the second amendment had more to do with whites protecting themselves from slaves. by far the largest population of people in the NE when all this happened were slaves. so many in fact the whites feared for their lives thus the domestic enemies thing. there are lots of articles on google if you dare to look.

I've used a firearm three different times to stop an intruder or detain them until law enforcement arrived to take them away. Each time the perps had a firearm and decided not to use it for fear of their lives. It's not just a toy. 

[TitanTiger 20,471]

1 minute ago, I_M4_AU said:

She said there is NO political will which means; none.  There is at least some political will to abolish the 2nd amendment or Micheal Moore would not have said anything.

Right.  There is no broad consensus to ban guns outright.

 

1 minute ago, I_M4_AU said:

There is an opportunity to work across the isle to get things done, but with Schumer calling for a vote in the Senate last night without discussion hoping for an emotional win, how are conservatives suppose to react to an open discussion?

Within hours of thus horrific crime our President got on national TV and prayed for the children and parents which was great.  If he had stopped there he might have been able to pull of some kind of discussion.  But, no, he has to take advantage of the dead children by demanding *something* be done and make inappropriate jokes about deer wearing Kevlar.

You can either try to play "the other side isn't good" games, or you can start making concrete proposals to make it harder for these things to happen.  But if all you've got is 'Chuck Schumer bad', don't be surprised if enough Americans look at the list of mass shootings and eventually think you don't really want to do anything about it and forge ahead without you.

 

1 minute ago, I_M4_AU said:

How would universal background checks have prevented this tragedy?

Likely wouldn't have for this one.  It could for others.

 

1 minute ago, I_M4_AU said:

What are *common sense* gun control laws and how do they differ from what we have now?

Let's start with some low hanging fruit.  An 18-year old shouldn't be able to buy a high powered weapon like an AR-15 or similar.  I'd argue they shouldn't be able to buy a firearm of any kind.  The adolescent brain, especially in males, is still developing well into their 20s.  Males in this culture tend to react emotionally and violently to mistreatment and disrespect.  Giving them easy and legal access to deadly weapons capable of killing a lot of people in a seconds or minutes just doesn't seem wise at all.  I'd raise the age for being able to get one to 25 years old.  Perhaps at 21 you could get one with a parent's permission and signature, which would also put that parent on the hook legally for anything you do with it.

I would also make body armor something the average citizen cannot legally purchase or own.  It should be reserved for law enforcement, qualified security personnel and military use only.  Don't allow these guys to be easily and legally protected from gunfire from police who respond, or the proverbial good guy with a gun who is carrying concealed and has a chance to stop them.  Wouldn't have helped here as he wasn't wearing the plates, but other shootings like the grocery store in Buffalo it would have helped.

I'd also craft some red flag laws with both real teeth and good checks and balances to make it easy to identify and report individuals who are exhibiting alarming and troubling behaviors and rhetoric, get them in front of a judge and their weapons away from them, and get some psychiatric evals of them before they act.

At least for high powered rifles like this, I'd also consider a waiting period before the weapon can be obtained.  What we do during the waiting period in terms of more in depth background checks or mental health evals we can discuss.  But the data shows that mass shooters overwhelmingly don't come from long time gun enthusiasts, hunters, sport shooters and the like who've owned firearms for years.  Most mass shooters buy their weapon of choice shortly before acting out their killing sprees.  Give them time to calm down, give us time to check them.

Others might be able to think of some others.  Those are a few off the top of my head that could help reduce the chances of a mass shooting.

 

1 minute ago, I_M4_AU said:

Would spending the COVID money allotted to schools for security at schools be a better deterrent then *common sense* gun control laws that are easily circumvented?

I think we could certainly do more to make schools harder to get into by bad actors, but I don't think defensive measures will be enough.

 

1 minute ago, I_M4_AU said:

Where are these discussion in the public forum?  They aren’t, because the narrative is only one way;  taking the rights away from law abiding citizens to appease the left’s insatiable thirst for control over their fellow man. 

I'm not sure what this even means.  We're just trying to get past this notion that there's nothing that can be done in terms of legislation to make this happen a lot less.  Other countries have done it, even while retaining gun ownership rights.

[TitanTiger 20,471]

20 minutes ago, autigeremt said:

Factsheet (vlaamsvredesinstituut.eu) 

I'm not sure how this answered any of my questions.

[autigeremt 6,569]

Just now, TitanTiger said:

I'm not sure how this answered any of my questions.

Information only 

[TitanTiger 20,471]

2 minutes ago, autigeremt said:

Information only 

Ok.

I do take issue with one of the stats mentioned right up front.  You don't measure gun ownership rate in a country or region by taking the total number of guns and the total number of people who own guns.  In other words, it's not how many guns each gun owner owns.  It's how many guns are there measured against the total population, then converted to a per capita basis (such as per 100 or per 1000 people).

When you do that correctly, you get comparable stats.  The EU has roughly 80 million guns in civilian hands across a population of 447 million people.  The US by contrast has around 393 million guns in civilian hands across a population of 330 million people.  That adds up to about 120 guns for every 100 people in this country compared to about 18 guns for every 100 people in the EU.