Three 3rd graders, three adults killed by shooter at Nashville elementary school

[TitanTiger 20,510]

36 minutes ago, GoAU said:

Your comment about the 2nd amendment not being an unlimited right, comes from what?  Biden’s talking points?

It's not anyone's "talking points," it's just basic facts and common sense.  None of our rights are absolute.  I've mentioned this multiple times already.  The right to keep and bear arms doesn't apply to ALL arms, even now.  There are all manner of weapons in existence in the US that only our military are permitted to own and have, even if you had the money to purchase expensive weapons like cruise missiles, Abrams-class tanks and so on.

There are restrictions and regulations even on the guns we can purchase now.  Besides restrictions for certain types of crimes in your past that may keep you from owning firearms, there are - even for people with squeaky clean records - other restrictions such as barrel length requirements.

The 1st Amendment isn't unlimited either.  You don't get to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded venue and induce a panic where people could be hurt or killed and escape prosecution.  You don't get to willfully and knowingly tell defamatory and damaging lies about others in a public forum without facing civil charges.

 

36 minutes ago, GoAU said:

However, I have never said or implied that there doesn’t need to be some restrictions, and there are.  There are literally thousands of gun laws at the national, state, and local levels - clearly they aren’t solving the issue.  Somehow “more laws” is your answer??  And when “assault rifles” (whatever you want that term to mean today) doesn’t fix the issue (and it won’t, because ALL homicides committed with rifles - not just “assault” rifles only account for 1% of firearm homicides) then you’ll want to move along to handguns, then magazine, sizes, then revolvers and lever action guns.  It is impossible to legislate this issue away without a continuously moving sliding scale, but maybe that’s what the gun control crowd wants, right?  

How is it that compared to every other country in the industrialized, modern world, America has this unique problem with mass shootings?  Are Americans naturally more depraved and violent?  Are we less able to follow the rule of law.  Are we more immoral?  Because the way these other countries were able to drastically reduce gun crime or keep it from spiking in the first place, was being intentional and regulating certain classes of weapons more heavily.  Even in more "pro-gun" countries like Switzerland.  They understand that not all guns are created equal in terms of their ability to kill lots of people quickly. 

People are people everywhere and no, Americans aren't uniquely worse than Europeans or Australians.  We just have MUCH easier access to firearms capable of mass murder than other places do.  That's the difference.

And it's not about someone's vague definition of what's an "assault" or "military style" weapon.  There are easy to ascertain metrics about rate of fire, projectile velocity, magazine capacity and so on that we could use to decide what kinds of regulations to put in place.  What isn't working is just letting any Joe Schmoe walk into a gun store and legally buy AR-15's and their ilk by passing a basic criminal background check

 

36 minutes ago, GoAU said:

I find it both disingenuous and disturbing that you’re willing to encroach on the rights of law abiding citizens for “safety” in the same breath that you complain we are punishing too many people that really do violate the laws. 

How do you feel about restricting cars and alcohol from everyone to reduce the drunk driving deaths?   Care to blame restaurants and utensil companies for obesity?  It’s awful big of you to sacrifice the rights of others so you can “fee” safe. 

It's not to "feel" safe, it's to "be" safe.  Make the requirements to get these kinds of weapons much higher and extensive.  Regulate the capabilities of these weapons so that you can't walk into a place with a 100-round drum magazine and mow people down without a chance to get away or disarm you.  This is what a sane society faced with one school shooting after another, after another, after another, after another ad nauseum would figure out.

 

36 minutes ago, GoAU said:

“Shall not be infringed” does sound pretty absolute and clear…..

So does "well regulated."

[GoAU 1,600]

17 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

It's not anyone's "talking points," it's just basic facts and common sense.  None of our rights are absolute.  I've mentioned this multiple times already.  The right to keep and bear arms doesn't apply to ALL arms, even now.  There are all manner of weapons in existence in the US that only our military are permitted to own and have, even if you had the money to purchase expensive weapons like cruise missiles, Abrams-class tanks and so on.

Yes, we are in agreement that there are weapons that civilians cannot own.  They are NOT however what most people think they are, and the issue here is not allowing the government to continue to “common sense” their way into a total (or near total) ban, which is exactly where the “slippery slope” will end up.
 

17 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

There are restrictions and regulations even on the guns we can purchase now.  Besides restrictions for certain types of crimes in your past that may keep you from owning firearms, there are - even for people with squeaky clean records - other restrictions such as barrel length requirements.

No one said there aren’t regulations now.  But I will point out that the barrel length restrictions and suppressor restrictions under the NFA are complete garbage and need to be repealed.   This is likely to happen thanks to the Bruin decision as well.  

 

17 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

The 1st Amendment isn't unlimited either.  You don't get to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded venue and induce a panic where people could be hurt or killed and escape prosecution.  You don't get to willfully and knowingly tell defamatory and damaging lies about others in a public forum without facing civil charges.

Interesting, and also irrelevant 

 

17 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

How is it that compared to every other country in the industrialized, modern world, America has this unique problem with mass shootings?  Are Americans naturally more depraved and violent?  Are we less able to follow the rule of law.  Are we more immoral?  Because the way these other countries were able to drastically reduce gun crime or keep it from spiking in the first place, was being intentional and regulating certain classes of weapons more heavily.  Even in more "pro-gun" countries like Switzerland.  They understand that not all guns are created equal in terms of their ability to kill lots of people quickly. 

Why is it we also have more gang violence (which is also a direct correlation to the mass shooting statistics)?   Are the guns making people join gangs too?  I’ve said before, and I’ll say it again, if surrendering rights is your solution to feeling “safe” I truly pity you.  

Are you willing to surrender other rights for “safety”?  Imagine how “safe” we can all feel if we just allow the president to unilaterally implement laws through executive action? 

 

17 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

People are people everywhere and no, Americans aren't uniquely worse than Europeans or Australians.  We just have MUCH easier access to firearms capable of mass murder than other places do.  That's the difference.

And it's not about someone's vague definition of what's an "assault" or "military style" weapon.  There are easy to ascertain metrics about rate of fire, projectile velocity, magazine capacity and so on that we could use to decide what kinds of regulations to put in place.  What isn't working is just letting any Joe Schmoe walk into a gun store and legally buy AR-15's and their ilk by passing a basic criminal background check

Yet, most of the lawmakers advocating for gun control still don’t understand what it is they are trying to legislate.

What “rate of fire” do you find acceptable since “semi automatic” is limited to one shot per activation of the trigger.  Are you for limiting how fast someone can pull a trigger?  Velocity is also laughable, unless you listen to Biden explaining how a 9mm “blows peoples lungs out”.  Hunting rifles have MUCH higher velocities than “assault” rifles.   Magazine capacity is also a straw man argument - it’s completely irrelevant and if you move from 30 to 20 to 15 to 10, it’ll just keep getting wielded away because it WILL NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE.  It will just keep moving arbitrarily.   

 

17 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

It's not to "feel" safe, it's to "be" safe.  Make the requirements to get these kinds of weapons much higher and extensive.  Regulate the capabilities of these weapons so that you can't walk into a place with a 100-round drum magazine and mow people down without a chance to get away or disarm you.  This is what a sane society faced with one school shooting after another, after another, after another, after another ad nauseum would figure out.

Look at the weapons used in “mass shootings” and the vast majority are not the assault weapons you are targeting.  Rifles, in total, account for less than 1% of all homicides.  This is ALL rifle, not just “assault” rifles.  More people are killed every year by “hands and feet” and “knives” than assault rifles.  But the reason you’re seeing the push there is because it’s just to get a foothold, and continue to expand from there.  

 

17 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

So does "well regulated."

I suggest you look deeply at the historical context of “well regulated” when referring to the militia and the key location of the comma in that sentence   

[CoffeeTiger 5,169]

So a report from the Tennessean is saying that in a 911 call during the Nashville school shooting an employee told the dispatcher that the school didn’t have dedicated security but had several teachers/staff members who were armed/carried guns. 
 

it’s not known if that’s true or if those people were on campus during that day. I’ve personally never seen any evidence that regular teachers having guns would 1. Prevent school shootings from happening or 2. Be effective at stopping one’s in progress. 
 

the whole ‘arm teachers’ movement says they’d ‘feel’ better knowing staff at their kids school had guns, but I don’t think their kids would actually ‘be’ any safer in reality. 

[GoAU 1,600]

1 hour ago, CoffeeTiger said:

So a report from the Tennessean is saying that in a 911 call during the Nashville school shooting an employee told the dispatcher that the school didn’t have dedicated security but had several teachers/staff members who were armed/carried guns. 
 

it’s not known if that’s true or if those people were on campus during that day. I’ve personally never seen any evidence that regular teachers having guns would 1. Prevent school shootings from happening or 2. Be effective at stopping one’s in progress. 
 

the whole ‘arm teachers’ movement says they’d ‘feel’ better knowing staff at their kids school had guns, but I don’t think their kids would actually ‘be’ any safer in reality. 

IMO I don’t think that allowing teachers to be armed, should they be trained and so inclined, is in itself a strategy for school security.   I’m not either heavily in favor or against allowing a teacher to carry a gun.  There are too many variables that could come into play to say whether this would improve security or not.   How many teachers are carrying, their location in the school, and level of training / competency all are major factors.   
 

I am a huge fan of armed school resource officers.  Not only do they deter crime, but can certainly help enforce other laws, help ensure good conduct in school and can help with police / public relations. 

[W.E.D 11,070]

On 3/27/2023 at 5:33 PM, Son of A Tiger said:

I ask again....do you think Wisconsin is a predominately Republican state?

Conservative GOP Heavy Wisconsin elects Liberal Majority to their Supreme Court.

[CoffeeTiger 5,169]

40 minutes ago, W.E.D said:

Conservative GOP Heavy Wisconsin elects Liberal Majority to their Supreme Court.

Wisconsin is a toss up state that as a total population leans to the left, but the state is gerrymandered to hell so Republicans consistently win the State house and a majority of the Congressional seats because the Districts are all drawn in Republicans favor (by the Republican Statehouse), but yes, Democrats have a much better chance when every Wisconsin citizens vote counts the same and aren't influenced by district lines, which is why Dems have a decent chance of winning the Governor race, This Supreme Court race, and sometimes the Presidential race, even though they have no shot at winning control of the actual State legislator.

 

 

 

[W.E.D 11,070]

4 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Wisconsin is a toss up state that as a total population leans to the left, but the state is gerrymandered to hell so Republicans consistently win the State house and a majority of the Congressional seats because the Districts are all drawn in Republicans favor (by the Republican Statehouse), but yes, Democrats have a much better chance when every Wisconsin citizens vote counts the same and aren't influenced by district lines, which is why Dems have a decent chance of winning the Governor race, This Supreme Court race, and sometimes the Presidential race, even though they have no shot at winning control of the actual State legislator.

Not sure if I agree it's a toss up state due to past elections, but yes it is gerrymandered to hell and that'll most likely change with a new court.

[Leftfield 2,653]

Wisconsin is pretty evenly split overall, as the past two presidential elections showed. As with many states, local governments are largely controlled by Republicans in the lesser populated areas, but many don't realize that Wisconsin is a fairly large state by area, so there is quite a bit of red in there. And, as @CoffeeTigerjust mentioned, the Republicans are guilty of quite a bit of gerrymandering.  Milwaukee and Madison are obviously the main Democratic strongholds, but there is a sizeable population along the west side of Lake Winnebago and through the Fox River Valley. Brown County (Green Bay) is really tight, but unlike the other counties in the Fox River Valley I'd say it's still slightly red....I'd have to check but I'm pretty sure it went to Trump in the past two elections.

[W.E.D 11,070]

9 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

but many don't realize that Wisconsin is a fairly large state by area, so there is quite a bit of red in there.

Land Doesn't vote

10 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Wisconsin is pretty evenly split overall, as the past two presidential elections showed.

That was the sole presidential election out of the last 40 years that went for the GOP.  It is consistently blue at an aggregate that isn't gerrymandered to s***

[Leftfield 2,653]

13 minutes ago, W.E.D said:

Land Doesn't vote

No, but the more of it you have, the more the population spreads out, and the more counties there tend to be. See how that works?

[W.E.D 11,070]

19 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

No, but the more of it you have, the more the population spreads out, and the more counties there tend to be. See how that works?

Counties don't always equal voting districts. You don't get more representation bc you are spread out 

[TitanTiger 20,510]

16 hours ago, GoAU said:

Yes, we are in agreement that there are weapons that civilians cannot own.  They are NOT however what most people think they are, and the issue here is not allowing the government to continue to “common sense” their way into a total (or near total) ban, which is exactly where the “slippery slope” will end up.

Well that's called "living in the tension."  We have a right to keep and bear arms, but not all arms.  We have a right to keep and bear arms, but some arms are regulated more heavily than others.  That's what common sense is.  Slippery slope scare mongering isn't a reason to act like there's nothing we can do to make it harder to obtain certain kinds of weapons for private citizens while preserving the 2nd Amendment.  Just because it requires critical thinking and hard work doesn't mean it can't be done.

 

16 hours ago, GoAU said:

No one said there aren’t regulations now.  But I will point out that the barrel length restrictions and suppressor restrictions under the NFA are complete garbage and need to be repealed.   This is likely to happen thanks to the Bruin decision as well. 

But you're implying that any further regulation somehow runs afoul of the 2A which is demonstrably untrue.  And the issue isn't whether you think this or that regulation is "garbage."  It's simply that regulating certain specs and capabilities of firearms is something allowable under the 2nd Amendment and in fact has been happening for a long time already.  This isn't some new concept.

 

16 hours ago, GoAU said:

Interesting, and also irrelevant

You responded questioning his contention that the 2nd Amendment isn't an unlimited right.  I simply pointed out, rightly I might add, that none of our rights are unlimited, with pertinent examples.  It's absolutely relevant given what you said and implied.

 

16 hours ago, GoAU said:

Why is it we also have more gang violence (which is also a direct correlation to the mass shooting statistics)?   Are the guns making people join gangs too?  I’ve said before, and I’ll say it again, if surrendering rights is your solution to feeling “safe” I truly pity you.  

Are you willing to surrender other rights for “safety”?  Imagine how “safe” we can all feel if we just allow the president to unilaterally implement laws through executive action? 

I'm already willing to surrender my right to have a suitcase nuke or a stash of C4 as one of the "arms" I'm permitted to keep and bear for safety reasons.  Certain weapons shouldn't be obtainable at all by regular citizens.  Others should have a much higher bar to clear in terms of background and mental health checks to obtain.  You act like this is some novel concept.  It isn't.

Gang violence is an obvious concern and availability of cheap weapons is a problem there too.  Strategies that will help prevent one kind of mass shooting may not help with a different kind.  No one strategy is being presented as a panacea for all here. 

 

16 hours ago, GoAU said:

Yet, most of the lawmakers advocating for gun control still don’t understand what it is they are trying to legislate.

What “rate of fire” do you find acceptable since “semi automatic” is limited to one shot per activation of the trigger.  Are you for limiting how fast someone can pull a trigger?  Velocity is also laughable, unless you listen to Biden explaining how a 9mm “blows peoples lungs out”.  Hunting rifles have MUCH higher velocities than “assault” rifles.   Magazine capacity is also a straw man argument - it’s completely irrelevant and if you move from 30 to 20 to 15 to 10, it’ll just keep getting wielded away because it WILL NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE.  It will just keep moving arbitrarily.  

I am not an expert.  I am proposing that we do bring people who understand these things and how they would impact a mass shooting event such as Covenant School and threw out some possible metrics such as rate of fire that could be considered.

And magazine capacity is absolutely not a strawman.  In roughly the same amount of time it takes for a regular shooter (neither novice nor expert or someone using a bump stock for instance) to empty a 100 round magazine from an AR-15 type rifle, a shooter would only get off roughly 30 shots if they were limited to a 10 round magazine.  It takes, on average, about 8-10 seconds from firing the last round, to ejecting the empty magazine, grabbing a new one and clicking it into place and firing the next shot.  Those are critical moments in these situations that allow people to flee the area, get to a safer more protected spot, or to confront the shooter and possibly subdue them.  How on earth can you say that being able to fire off a near constant barrage of 100 bullets compared to 30 or so in the same length of time, with 8-10 second gaps interspersed is irrelevant?  Be serious.

 

 

16 hours ago, GoAU said:

Look at the weapons used in “mass shootings” and the vast majority are not the assault weapons you are targeting.  Rifles, in total, account for less than 1% of all homicides.  This is ALL rifle, not just “assault” rifles.  More people are killed every year by “hands and feet” and “knives” than assault rifles.  But the reason you’re seeing the push there is because it’s just to get a foothold, and continue to expand from there. 

This is a conflating of a lot of various stats to obscure how deadly these AR-type rifles are. 

No one is proposing that increased regulation of AR-style rifles will solve all ills.  That doesn't mean it's not needed or that it's a meaningless gesture.

First of all, mass shooting events are on the rise.  According to FBI statistics, it's been a startling increase from around 3 in the year 2000 to the low 20s from 2008-2016, the low 30s from 2017-19 and 40 in 2020.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/

But secondly, the issue that's trying to be tackled by regulating these weapons more is that when they are used, the results are far deadlier than with other kinds of weapons.  That's for a variety of factors - the damage the projectile does to a target with handguns vs AR-15s, projectile velocity (which also contributes to the damage it does to human tissue), magazine capacity, accuracy and so on.  Looking back at the 10 deadliest shootings of the past decade makes this abundantly clear.  Here's the list with number killed and primary (or sole) weapon used:

1.  Las Vegas - 58 dead - shooter had a lot of firearms but the primary ones were "assault" type semi automatic rifles.  He also used a bump stock to simulate the firing ability of a fully automatic.

2. Pulse Nightclub, Orlando - 49 dead - AR

3. First Baptist, Southerland Springs, TX - 25 dead - AR

4. Walmart, El Paso, TX - 23 dead - AK-style

5. Uvalde, TX school - 21 dead - AR

6. Parkland, FL - 17 dead - AR

7. San Bernadino, CA - 14 dead - AR

8. Navy Yard, Washington DC - 12 dead - shotgun

9. Thousand Oaks, CA - 12 dead - .45 cal handgun

10. Virginia Beach, VA - 12 dead - .45 cal handgun

https://abcnews.go.com/US/10-deadliest-shootings-past-decade-involved-legally-purchased/story?id=98184833

For those keeping score at home, that's a death toll of 207 for what's popularly referred to as "assault" rifles in our 10 most deadly shootings of the last decade vs 36 for shotguns and handguns combined.  The average death toll for shootings involving an AR or AK style weapon was almost 30 and for other kinds of guns, it was 12.  There's a reason for that and it has everything to do with accuracy, the ability to firing more rounds in the same amount of time, and the damage each type of weapon is able to inflect when it hits someone.

These weapons are more deadly.  Full stop.  At some point this needs to be acknowledged and we need to stop treating them the same way we do the little snub-nose .38 revolver your wife carries in her purse.

 

16 hours ago, GoAU said:

I suggest you look deeply at the historical context of “well regulated” when referring to the militia and the key location of the comma in that sentence   

I'm well aware.  And my use of well-regulated is just as valid as your use of "shall not be infringed" to try and deflect virtually any further regulation.

[Leftfield 2,653]

13 minutes ago, W.E.D said:

Counties don't always equal voting districts. You don't get more representation bc you are spread out 

If you look at my statement I was mainly referring to local governments.

[GoAU 1,600]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

But you're implying that any further regulation somehow runs afoul of the 2A which is demonstrably untrue.  And the issue isn't whether you think this or that regulation is "garbage."  It's simply that regulating certain specs and capabilities of firearms is something allowable under the 2nd Amendment and in fact has been happening for a long time already.  This isn't some new concept.

You do a great job of explaining exactly how the “slippery slope works” - just a little more regulation, it’s already regulated, right?  Just a little more then because the “problem” hasn’t went away.  The same playbook Trudeau used in Canada…..

 

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

I'm already willing to surrender my right to have a suitcase nuke or a stash of C4 as one of the "arms" I'm permitted to keep and bear for safety reasons.  Certain weapons shouldn't be obtainable at all by regular citizens.  Others should have a much higher bar to clear in terms of background and mental health checks to obtain.  You act like this is some novel concept.  It isn't.

That’s exactly what is in place now   There is a higher bar in place for full auto firearms and destructive devices.  You are clearly advocating for moving the goalposts, again.   Yes, the “slippery slope”, again….

 

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

Gang violence is an obvious concern and availability of cheap weapons is a problem there too.  Strategies that will help prevent one kind of mass shooting may not help with a different kind.  No one strategy is being presented as a panacea for all here. 

Cheap weapons aren’t cheap because they are bought legally.  You must not have been in a gun store recently.  They are cheap because criminals are criminals.   Even if you were to magically confiscate every gun from ever law abiding citizen - the criminals would still be armed to the teeth.   Smuggling in firearms would still be easy - look how well our borders keep out tons and tons of drugs   

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

I am not an expert.  I am proposing that we do bring people who understand these things and how they would impact a mass shooting event such as Covenant School and threw out some possible metrics such as rate of fire that could be considered.

You are right - you’re not an expert.  How exactly would you regulate how fast someone’s trigger finger moves?   Or maybe you’re advocating the removal of ALL semi automatic weapons?  

 

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

And magazine capacity is absolutely not a strawman.  In roughly the same amount of time it takes for a regular shooter (neither novice nor expert or someone using a bump stock for instance) to empty a 100 round magazine from an AR-15 type rifle, a shooter would only get off roughly 30 shots if they were limited to a 10 round magazine.  It takes, on average, about 8-10 seconds from firing the last round, to ejecting the empty magazine, grabbing a new one and clicking it into place and firing the next shot.  Those are critical moments in these situations that allow people to flee the area, get to a safer more protected spot, or to confront the shooter and possibly subdue them.  How on earth can you say that being able to fire off a near constant barrage of 100 bullets compared to 30 or so in the same length of time, with 8-10 second gaps interspersed is irrelevant?  Be serious.

Once again, your lack of subject matter knowledge is showing. A magazine change takes 2-3 seconds if you are remotely competent.  100 round drum mags are also notoriously unreliable- that’s why the military doesn’t use them.   I do get a chuckle out of you trying to explain a magazine change though.

 

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

But secondly, the issue that's trying to be tackled by regulating these weapons more is that when they are used, the results are far deadlier than with other kinds of weapons.  That's for a variety of factors - the damage the projectile does to a target with handguns vs AR-15s, projectile velocity (which also contributes to the damage it does to human tissue, magazine capacity, accuracy and so on. 

These weapons are more deadly.  Full stop.  At some point this needs to be acknowledged and we need to stop treating them the same way we do the little snub-nose .38 revolver your wife carries in her purse.

So, which “deadly factor” is more important to you - the longer barrel and higher velocities of rifles or the ability to conceal multiple weapons like handguns?  Maybe the rate of fire of semi auto weapons?  Perhaps answer “D”, all of the above?   That is exactly where you are heading because you are not addressing the root cause   You are merely taking the easy way out and trying to disarm the entire populace.  How about we start involuntarily committing the mentally ill instead of celebrating them?  How about enforcing the laws on the books and ensuring that when people ARE legally deemed a threat their info is actually in NICS?

 

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

I'm well aware.  And my use of well-regulated is just as valid as your use of "shall not be infringed" to try and deflect virtually any further regulation.

No, you clearly aren’t.  

 

[W.E.D 11,070]

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

If you look at my statement I was mainly referring to local governments.

and when you aggregate that it becomes heavily watered down.  B/c you have a local town of 7 people 100 times, doesn't mean it is "more red" than Milwaukee 1x with 600k people.

[Leftfield 2,653]

2 minutes ago, W.E.D said:

and when you aggregate that it becomes heavily watered down.  B/c you have a local town of 7 people 100 times, doesn't mean it is "more red" than Milwaukee 1x with 600k people.

You are making this way more complicated than what I was talking about.

[TitanTiger 20,510]

57 minutes ago, GoAU said:

You do a great job of explaining exactly how the “slippery slope works” - just a little more regulation, it’s already regulated, right?  Just a little more then because the “problem” hasn’t went away.  The same playbook Trudeau used in Canada…..

 

That’s exactly what is in place now   There is a higher bar in place for full auto firearms and destructive devices.  You are clearly advocating for moving the goalposts, again.   Yes, the “slippery slope”, again….

It's not a slippery slope to point out that since the 2nd Amendment was written, we have adapted gun laws and regulations based on technological developments, new arms that have come into use, and so on.  That's not "slippery slope" or "moving the goalposts," it's pointing out a process that has been in place for 200+ years when it comes to various types of weaponry.  There's nothing magical about an AR-15 that should make it immune to the same kind of scrutiny and adapting of laws and regulations.

 

 

57 minutes ago, GoAU said:

Cheap weapons aren’t cheap because they are bought legally.  You must not have been in a gun store recently.  They are cheap because criminals are criminals.   Even if you were to magically confiscate every gun from ever law abiding citizen - the criminals would still be armed to the teeth.   Smuggling in firearms would still be easy - look how well our borders keep out tons and tons of drugs  

No one is suggesting confiscating all guns.  That is a red herring. 

And no effort is 100% effective.  Hell, no law on the books that prohibits certain types of behavior is.  But we can make it harder, have higher barriers to entry, and so on.  Unless you're advocating for complete anarchy, this isn't a rebuttal.

 

57 minutes ago, GoAU said:

You are right - you’re not an expert.  How exactly would you regulate how fast someone’s trigger finger moves?   Or maybe you’re advocating the removal of ALL semi automatic weapons? 

No, I'm not.  And you keep singling out one *possible* metric - that isn't even the most important one.  I'm saying that a matrix of metrics could be looked at and weapons that check enough of these boxes could be better regulated.

Again, it's using one's brain to understand that the process and criteria to be able to obtain a .38 revolver shouldn't be the same as the process to get an AR-15 with a standard 30 round magazine and available 100-round drum magazine.  I literally haven't even said we need to ban the latter altogether.  But it should be bleeding obvious that these are different classes of weapon and should be treated accordingly.

 

57 minutes ago, GoAU said:

Once again, your lack of subject matter knowledge is showing. A magazine change takes 2-3 seconds if you are remotely competent.  100 round drum mags are also notoriously unreliable- that’s why the military doesn’t use them.   I do get a chuckle out of you trying to explain a magazine change though.

Magazine change speed depends on a lot of factors.  In an environment where one isn't walking around, and they spend a lot of time practicing, certainly it can change more rapidly.  But the change itself isn't the main factor.  The measure is from the firing of the last round in the spent magazine, to the firing of the first round in the new one.  Those are precious seconds in an active shooter situation.

Let's do a little math experiment.  The shooter at Dayton, OH  in 2019 ripped off 41 shots with an AR-15 in roughly 32 seconds before nearby police got there and took him out, hitting 24 people, killing nine.  He was using a 100-round drum magazine with no problem.  Restrict him to a 15 round magazine and he's having to stop and change magazines twice to even have a chance to fire 41 bullets. 

Forty one shots in 32 seconds is about shot every .78 seconds.  With a 15 round magazine, that's about 11.7 seconds to empty it.  I'll split the difference a bit (but still tilt your way) and say it only took him 5 seconds from the last shot of the spent mag to the first of the next.  In 32 seconds he'd only get off about 30 shots by comparison.  The police would have dropped him before he got off a shot from the third magazine. 

Hitting 24 people with 41 shots is a 58.5% hit rate.  Killing 9 in 41 shots is a 22% kill rate.  Limit him to 30 shots with the same rate of success and you're looking at 17.55 and 6.6 killed.  In just one shooting, you've prevented at least 6 gunshot injuries and 2 deaths.  More if he isn't as proficient at swapping out magazines.

Even five seconds without bullets flying can enable someone to run out of building, crawl out a window, or if they're close enough, launch a counter attack to disarm the shooter.

 

57 minutes ago, GoAU said:

So, which “deadly factor” is more important to you - the longer barrel and higher velocities of rifles or the ability to conceal multiple weapons like handguns?  Maybe the rate of fire of semi auto weapons?  Perhaps answer “D”, all of the above?   That is exactly where you are heading because you are not addressing the root cause   You are merely taking the easy way out and trying to disarm the entire populace.  How about we start involuntarily committing the mentally ill instead of celebrating them?  How about enforcing the laws on the books and ensuring that when people ARE legally deemed a threat their info is actually in NICS?

 

Again, I'm not isolating one metric as the end all-be all.  I'm saying that the confluence of multiple metrics in one weapon could be used to make that weapon subject to stricter regulations, more extensive background checks, tighter secure storage requirements, and so on.

 

57 minutes ago, GoAU said:

No, you clearly aren’t. 

I'm at least as aware as you are.  Because evidently outlawing, regulating or restricting certain types of arms isn't considered "infringing."

[icanthearyou 4,463]

2 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Wisconsin is a toss up state that as a total population leans to the left, but the state is gerrymandered to hell so Republicans consistently win the State house and a majority of the Congressional seats because the Districts are all drawn in Republicans favor (by the Republican Statehouse), but yes, Democrats have a much better chance when every Wisconsin citizens vote counts the same and aren't influenced by district lines, which is why Dems have a decent chance of winning the Governor race, This Supreme Court race, and sometimes the Presidential race, even though they have no shot at winning control of the actual State legislator.

 

 

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/wisconsin-senate-supermajority-win-gives-republicans-impeachment-power/ar-AA19vJvZ?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=7cec601ae5e5423a895349fe83aee8e5&ei=8

Just another one of the means by which democracy is subverted.

[homersapien 11,440]

3 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Wisconsin is a toss up state that as a total population leans to the left, but the state is gerrymandered to hell so Republicans consistently win the State house and a majority of the Congressional seats because the Districts are all drawn in Republicans favor (by the Republican Statehouse), but yes, Democrats have a much better chance when every Wisconsin citizens vote counts the same and aren't influenced by district lines, which is why Dems have a decent chance of winning the Governor race, This Supreme Court race, and sometimes the Presidential race, even though they have no shot at winning control of the actual State legislator.

Hopefully, that's about to change:

"Liberal groups are now preparing to file a lawsuit challenging the legislative and congressional districts that conservatives on the Wisconsin Supreme Court approved last year. Those maps so heavily favor Republicans that they have been able to gain nearly two-thirds of the seats in the state legislature even though Wisconsin is nearly evenly split between Democratic and Republican voters."

Liberals win control of Wisconsin Supreme Court ahead of abortion case - The Washington Post

[GoAU 1,600]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

It's not a slippery slope to point out that since the 2nd Amendment was written, we have adapted gun laws and regulations based on technological developments, new arms that have come into use, and so on.  That's not "slippery slope" or "moving the goalposts," it's pointing out a process that has been in place for 200+ years when it comes to various types of weaponry.  There's nothing magical about an AR-15 that should make it immune to the same kind of scrutiny and adapting of laws and regulations.

The technology behind semi automatic firearms has not changed appreciably it a hundred years.   Our issue is not with the technology of firearms advancing, it is with society degrading.   Moving standards that have been in place for over a generation IS moving the goalpost.   
 

 

No one is suggesting confiscating all guns.  That is a red herring. 

And no effort is 100% effective.  Hell, no law on the books that prohibits certain types of behavior is.  But we can make it harder, have higher barriers to entry, and so on.  Unless you're advocating for complete anarchy, this isn't a rebuttal.

No, you seem content to “allow” people to have snub nosed .38 revolvers, hunting rifles (unless you deem their velocity is too high), and some shotguns .   However, you are then failing to acknowledge the intent behind the 2A.  

 

No, I'm not.  And you keep singling out one *possible* metric - that isn't even the most important one.  I'm saying that a matrix of metrics could be looked at and weapons that check enough of these boxes could be better regulated.

Just out of curiosity, I’d like to see the matrix you propose. However it won’t work as you’d also be eliminating the most effective weapons for self defense.

 

Again, it's using one's brain to understand that the process and criteria to be able to obtain a .38 revolver shouldn't be the same as the process to get an AR-15 with a standard 30 round magazine and available 100-round drum magazine.  I literally haven't even said we need to ban the latter altogether.  But it should be bleeding obvious that these are different classes of weapon and should be treated accordingly.

How exactly would you make background checks more effective?  I will agree with you in one area that would improve background checks - criminal accountability for agencies that fail to report criminals into the NICS system, as has happened on multiple occasions.   Other than that, I’d be game to hear suggestions on how background checks more effective that wouldn’t result in a gun registry

 

As for classes of weapons, that already exists - you just want to move it, right? 
 

 

 

Magazine change speed depends on a lot of factors.  In an environment where one isn't walking around, and they spend a lot of time practicing, certainly it can change more rapidly.  But the change itself isn't the main factor.  The measure is from the firing of the last round in the spent magazine, to the firing of the first round in the new one.  Those are precious seconds in an active shooter situation.

Let's do a little math experiment.  The shooter at Dayton, OH  in 2019 ripped off 41 shots with an AR-15 in roughly 32 seconds before nearby police got there and took him out, hitting 24 people, killing nine.  He was using a 100-round drum magazine with no problem.  Restrict him to a 15 round magazine and he's having to stop and change magazines twice to even have a chance to fire 41 bullets. 

Forty one shots in 32 seconds is about shot every .78 seconds.  With a 15 round magazine, that's about 11.7 seconds to empty it.  I'll split the difference a bit (but still tilt your way) and say it only took him 5 seconds from the last shot of the spent mag to the first of the next.  In 32 seconds he'd only get off about 30 shots by comparison.  The police would have dropped him before he got off a shot from the third magazine. 

Hitting 24 people with 41 shots is a 58.5% hit rate.  Killing 9 in 41 shots is a 22% kill rate.  Limit him to 30 shots with the same rate of success and you're looking at 17.55 and 6.6 killed.  In just one shooting, you've prevented at least 6 gunshot injuries and 2 deaths.  More if he isn't as proficient at swapping out magazines.

Even five seconds without bullets flying can enable someone to run out of building, crawl out a window, or if they're close enough, launch a counter attack to disarm the shooter.

There is a whole lot of oversimplification in you math exercise above, but I do agree that greater magazine capacity can be an advantage, and it isn’t one we should deny our law abiding citizens.  I will also point out that the deadliest mass shooting in the US (VT)  happened with handguns, so this wouldn’t make a difference.   And when the incidents continue to happen (because we are not addressing the root cause) the number of rounds in a magazine will continue to be slashed in the spirit of “doing something”.  
 

Again, I'm not isolating one metric as the end all-be all.  I'm saying that the confluence of multiple metrics in one weapon could be used to make that weapon subject to stricter regulations, more extensive background checks, tighter secure storage requirements, and so on.

Once again, we have more regulations regarding guns than we seem to be willing to enforce already.  The road you are going down has only one end, and it is contrary to the 2A, whether you choose to admit it or not.  Making rules “stricter” doesn’t do a thing if you are already complaining that we have too many people incarcerated.   

I'm at least as aware as you are.  Because evidently outlawing, regulating or restricting certain types of arms isn't considered "infringing."

Sure it is, but you are still misinterpreting the Second Amendment.  
 

And because I am reasonable, don’t object as stringently to some regulation, but further regulation isn’t needed.   And in some cases, such as SBRs and suppressors, we’ve already went too far    I

 

[autigeremt 6,686]

On 4/1/2023 at 1:22 PM, AU9377 said:

Sometimes asking someone that lived in this country for over 100 years is telling.  My great grandmother lived to be 101.  She once told me that good people didn't need to make a game out of killing other people.  We treat killing people like a sport and that is a sad commentary on where we are.

“We”? Ok 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

5 minutes ago, autigeremt said:

“We”? Ok 

Yeah,,, WE the people.  WE are the government,,, supposedly.  

[Leftfield 2,653]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/05/health/gun-violence-more-lethal/index.html

 

A record number of people are dying from firearm injuries in the US, and new research suggests that shootings are becoming more lethal, too.

Most victims of fatal firearm injuries die at the scene of the shooting, before they can be treated in a health care setting. But that has become increasingly common over the past two decades.

About 57% of firearm fatalities in 2021 occurred at the scene of the shooting, up 9% since 1999, according to a research letter published Wednesday in the JAMA Surgery journal. For this analysis, researchers used data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and excluded suicides and other self-inflicted firearm injuries.

Nearly 49,000 people died from firearm injuries in the US in 2021, CDC data shows – an unprecedented surge of about 23% over two years during the Covid-19 pandemic.

And a shift in the type of firearms that are being bought and used is a key factor making shootings more lethal, experts say.

“It’s leaning more and more towards military-grade, higher velocity, higher lethality type of weapons,” said Dr. Eric Fleegler, an emergency physician at Boston Children’s Hospital.

“That includes larger magazine capacity so they can shoot more bullets, the ability to fire them at faster rates, and quite frankly, just bigger, faster bullets which cause more damage to a human body.”

Federal data shows that handguns are the most common murder weapon, used in more than half of all homicides that involve firearms. But rifles, such as the AR-15, are becoming more frequently used.

Nearly 4% of firearm homicides in 2021 involved a rifle, killing 447 people, according to data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. That’s more than twice as many deaths and nearly twice as common compared to firearm homicides in 2015.

Other external factors could also play a role in the location where a victim dies, such as increasing demand for ambulances that could affect emergency transportation options.

Still, experts say that more – and better – data on gun violence is needed.

In the CDC data, for example, definitions to help differentiate location of death were lacking and many were coded as “other” or “unknown.”

And the true scope of America’s gun epidemic is far broader than the deaths it causes, experts say.

“Deaths from firearm injuries are horrible tragedies, but they are unfortunately just the tip of the iceberg,” said Fleegler, who has studied gun violence but was not involved in this research.

There are many others who suffer physically from gunshot wounds and a deep emotional toll on families and communities, he said, and more robust data is needed to understand that.

While there are more questions to be answered, experts say that this new research adds to evidence that an important step to reducing gun violence will involve addressing the types of guns that are available.

“It reiterates that maybe there should be a look at solutions which limit the magazine capacity and access to high-caliber weapons, as well,” said Ari Davis, a policy advisor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Center for Gun Violence Solutions.

[Son of A Tiger 561]

On 4/1/2023 at 1:23 PM, AU9377 said:

This is just Tucker Carlson level imagination.  Why would the Chinese govt. need to sneak people in thru Mexico?  They have multitudes of cargo ships sailing into ports daily.

So we learn today that Mexico has asked China for help in stopping the fetanyl problem. So China can now send people into Mexico with no problem and mix in a few spies to come across our border. Perhaps even more concerning is China's growing influence in the Western hemisphere, They are already very active in most South America countries and now becoming a guest with Mexico. Meanwhile the idiots Biden, Harris and Mayorkas say no problem. Wake up!!

[arein0 977]

2 hours ago, Son of A Tiger said:

So we learn today that Mexico has asked China for help in stopping the fetanyl problem. So China can now send people into Mexico with no problem and mix in a few spies to come across our border. Perhaps even more concerning is China's growing influence in the Western hemisphere, They are already very active in most South America countries and now becoming a guest with Mexico. Meanwhile the idiots Biden, Harris and Mayorkas say no problem. Wake up!!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Conservatives want us to practice isolationism, ie stop spending on helping other countries and use that money to improve us? If we stop providing aide to the rest of the world, who are they going to look to for help? How does it look to our southern border that we are wanting to build a wall to keep them out? Don't you think their leaders would take that as an insult?