Not defending Trump, but any mass shootings ever happen during other Presidents terms? Who encouraged Judas?
Sensible Gun Safety
Re: Sensible Gun Control
oligarchy thanks you......same as it evah was
Re: Sensible Gun Control
ggait,
Never said they should have them said they can get access to them, big difference - what is a law gonna stop? Also 3-D printing can help one create allot of things and it is moving fast. BTW your a lawyer - I am sure you are familiar with the federal sentencing guidelines. There is a law for everything under the sun - has it stopped anyone from doing anything illegal?
Never said they should have them said they can get access to them, big difference - what is a law gonna stop? Also 3-D printing can help one create allot of things and it is moving fast. BTW your a lawyer - I am sure you are familiar with the federal sentencing guidelines. There is a law for everything under the sun - has it stopped anyone from doing anything illegal?
Re: Sensible Gun Control
Not arguing the horrific nature of the shootings in the US.
But those stats are incomplete and misleading.
If we're talking about mass shootings in the sense of someone going off their rocker, the US stats are inflated. That 250 US number includes all shootings of 3+ people in the US. Including shootings that occurred during other drug and crimes in cities like Chicago and Baltimore.
The not is same for the other countries. If the calls for asylum of the immigrant caravan are true, or if you've ever watched an episode of Vice on HBO, those mass shooting stats for other countries are incomplete because they DONT include stats for drug and crime murders.
But those stats are incomplete and misleading.
If we're talking about mass shootings in the sense of someone going off their rocker, the US stats are inflated. That 250 US number includes all shootings of 3+ people in the US. Including shootings that occurred during other drug and crimes in cities like Chicago and Baltimore.
The not is same for the other countries. If the calls for asylum of the immigrant caravan are true, or if you've ever watched an episode of Vice on HBO, those mass shooting stats for other countries are incomplete because they DONT include stats for drug and crime murders.
I never knew no Godfather. I got my own family, Senator."
Re: Sensible Gun Control
Did any of you fine folks "witness" DD-K's impassioned, 
heartfelt condemnation of this weekend's events in Dayton and BETOville? How that clown kept a straight face is a testament to his skill as a shapeshifter. Cameleons and Octopi could learn something from DD-K. 
heartfelt condemnation of this weekend's events in Dayton and BETOville? How that clown kept a straight face is a testament to his skill as a shapeshifter. Cameleons and Octopi could learn something from DD-K. -
runrussellrun
- Posts: 7565
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 11:07 am
Re: Sensible Gun Control
According to a certain newly elected Congress person, it was NO big deal.ggait wrote: ↑Sun Aug 04, 2019 9:15 pmTo coin a phrase, I call BS on that. Anyone with a brain does too.They'll use IEDs, truck, pistols, knives, etc.
I could easily kill/main a dozen people in 60 seconds with an assault rifle. And I'm a pudgy middle aged suburban guy with no special training or skills or special access to gear. Also, I can come up with dozens of soft targets within a 5 mile radius of my house to do it -- churches, schools, restaurants, movie theatres, stores, malls, etc.
I could not do that with a revolver, shot gun, knife or baseball bat. Maybe I could inflict some mayhem with a semi-auto pistol, but an assault rifle is just so much better of a tool. That muzzle velocity really brings the fatality!
It would be really really hard for me (and almost all of these wackos) to successfully pull off a bomb blast. The El Paso and Dayton shooters were messed up crazy young guys. They played video games and attended community college -- they did not attend Army Ranger school for pete sake! With some extensive planning I might/might not be able to pull off the truck massacre. But I'd never bother to try since the assault rifle path is sooo much easier and soo much more effective.
We still have car crashes even with drunk driving laws and a 55 MPH speed limit. Does that mean we should let people drive drunk and 100 MPH? People still rob banks even though that's against the law. Should we give that one up too? We all lock our doors at night, even though we know it is no guarantee against intrusion. Since when do we let the forking perfect be the enemy of the good????
This is a beyond stupid argument to make. Sheesh. SMH.
And here's the other idiotic argument I can't stand. 50k people die each year in car crashes and suicides. So these mass shootings are really no big deal. Fork that. By that reasoning 9/11 was no big deal -- only 3k killed, right?
ILM...Independent Lives Matter
Pronouns: "we" and "suck"
Pronouns: "we" and "suck"
-
runrussellrun
- Posts: 7565
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 11:07 am
Re: Sensible Gun Control
Yes, the Obama administration put 100's of bailout Wall st. banksters in jail, breaking dozens of laws.LandM wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2019 11:08 am ggait,
Never said they should have them said they can get access to them, big difference - what is a law gonna stop? Also 3-D printing can help one create allot of things and it is moving fast. BTW your a lawyer - I am sure you are familiar with the federal sentencing guidelines. There is a law for everything under the sun - has it stopped anyone from doing anything illegal?
ILM...Independent Lives Matter
Pronouns: "we" and "suck"
Pronouns: "we" and "suck"
-
seacoaster
- Posts: 8866
- Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2018 4:36 pm
Re: Sensible Gun Control
An opinion piece in today's Times:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/05/opin ... e=Homepage
"The lethality of military-style rifles is self-evident: Six of the deadliest mass shootings in the last 10 years all included military-style firearms. But large-capacity magazines — generally defined as ammunition-feeding devices holding more than 10 rounds — are arguably even more dangerous than the guns themselves: A study last year found roughly half of recent mass shootings involved them. A growing consensus among criminologists is that, as deadly as military-style weapons are, the critical factor that multiplies the mayhem is not necessarily the style of the weapon but the size of the magazines.
The tragic use of large-capacity magazines isn’t limited to mass shooters, who for all their destruction are still only responsible for about 1 percent of all gun killings in a given year. The criminologist Christopher S. Koper — who researched the impact of the 1990s federal assault weapons ban, a law which also limited magazines to 10 rounds — published a paper last summer showing that since the federal ban lapsed in 2004, gun crimes committed with large-capacity magazines have increased steadily; over 40 percent in cases of serious violence. Mr. Koper and his co-authors also reported, “Trend analyses also indicate that high-capacity semiautomatics have grown from 33 to 112 percent as a share of crime guns since the expiration of the federal ban — a trend that has coincided with recent growth in shootings nationwide.” A 2014 study concluded that “large capacity magazines were used in more than half of all cases with significant increases in fatalities, injuries, and total victim counts identified.”
Nevertheless, even with this bloodshed directly attributable to enlarged magazines, the gun industry remains poised to release a new generation of them that are lighter weight, more reliable, and higher capacity. Until now, some of the most common large magazines held 30 rounds of ammunition. This newer generation with better anti-friction “self-lubricating” technology ranges from 40 to 100 rounds
While extra-large capacity magazines are not necessarily new, the updated technology of what’s just recently hit the market means these tools will jam less and be more reliable — which, in active shooter situations, translates to more deadly. The shooter at a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., in 2012, for example, used a drum magazine that was capable of holding 100 rounds. And although he still killed 12 people and wounded 70, the carnage could have been worse if his rifle and magazine hadn’t jammed as it probably did in mid-assault. With that knowledge in hand, it’s utterly terrifying that according to a former official of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, civilian sales of these new, higher-capacity magazines are “going through the roof.”
Currently, nine states and the District of Columbia rigorously regulate the capacity of magazines — limiting them to 10 rounds, except for Colorado, which sets the limit at 15. While efforts to re-enact a federal ban have failed, laws like the one in New York offer a relatively direct state-level remedy: Weapons like assault rifles must have fixed, non-removable magazines, and they cannot hold more than 10 rounds. Yet thanks to overly generous readings of the Second Amendment, even common-sense solutions like New York’s law could be considered unconstitutional.
In March, a Federal District Court judge struck down the 10-round magazine limit long established in California law. The ruling in the case — Duncan v. Becerra — is startling for two reasons: first, magazine capacity limits had been consistently upheld in court; second, the judge concluded there is a Second Amendment right to own bullet magazines holding more than 10 rounds, calling it a core” right of the Second Amendment. The judge’s suspect, downright strange ruling is on appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where it may in the end be overturned.
In addition, the Supreme Court’s decision to accept an appeal to a lower court ruling upholding a New York City gun law suggests court members may be looking to revisit, and perhaps expand, gun rights. Leading the way is Justice Clarence Thomas, who in 2018 voiced his profound dissatisfaction with what he sees as the courts’ ill treatment of said rights since the high court’s 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, saying that the amendment had been treated “cavalierly,” as a “disfavored right,” and a “constitutional orphan.” Yet this is a far cry from the actual history of gun laws in America.
Their regulation of ammunition-feeding devices in this country dates back nearly a century. From 1927 to 1934, 16 states enacted laws that restricted magazine capacity, in some cases for fully automatic weapons only, in others for semi- and fully automatic weapons, and in some for all firearms of any type. Among the states that listed maximum capacity, they ranged from more than one round to a maximum of 18. And this was during the gun crime wave of the 1920s and early 1930s — when the weaponry we have now was the stuff of science fiction.
What greater purpose is there for large capacity magazines today, when weapons are even more efficiently deadly?
It seems clear that, at least for now, the United States is not going to seriously restrict the sale of military-style weapons. But we can at least restrict the tragic capabilities of their firepower. Judges shouldn’t stand in the way. The Constitution certainly doesn’t."
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/05/opin ... e=Homepage
"The lethality of military-style rifles is self-evident: Six of the deadliest mass shootings in the last 10 years all included military-style firearms. But large-capacity magazines — generally defined as ammunition-feeding devices holding more than 10 rounds — are arguably even more dangerous than the guns themselves: A study last year found roughly half of recent mass shootings involved them. A growing consensus among criminologists is that, as deadly as military-style weapons are, the critical factor that multiplies the mayhem is not necessarily the style of the weapon but the size of the magazines.
The tragic use of large-capacity magazines isn’t limited to mass shooters, who for all their destruction are still only responsible for about 1 percent of all gun killings in a given year. The criminologist Christopher S. Koper — who researched the impact of the 1990s federal assault weapons ban, a law which also limited magazines to 10 rounds — published a paper last summer showing that since the federal ban lapsed in 2004, gun crimes committed with large-capacity magazines have increased steadily; over 40 percent in cases of serious violence. Mr. Koper and his co-authors also reported, “Trend analyses also indicate that high-capacity semiautomatics have grown from 33 to 112 percent as a share of crime guns since the expiration of the federal ban — a trend that has coincided with recent growth in shootings nationwide.” A 2014 study concluded that “large capacity magazines were used in more than half of all cases with significant increases in fatalities, injuries, and total victim counts identified.”
Nevertheless, even with this bloodshed directly attributable to enlarged magazines, the gun industry remains poised to release a new generation of them that are lighter weight, more reliable, and higher capacity. Until now, some of the most common large magazines held 30 rounds of ammunition. This newer generation with better anti-friction “self-lubricating” technology ranges from 40 to 100 rounds
While extra-large capacity magazines are not necessarily new, the updated technology of what’s just recently hit the market means these tools will jam less and be more reliable — which, in active shooter situations, translates to more deadly. The shooter at a movie theater in Aurora, Colo., in 2012, for example, used a drum magazine that was capable of holding 100 rounds. And although he still killed 12 people and wounded 70, the carnage could have been worse if his rifle and magazine hadn’t jammed as it probably did in mid-assault. With that knowledge in hand, it’s utterly terrifying that according to a former official of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, civilian sales of these new, higher-capacity magazines are “going through the roof.”
Currently, nine states and the District of Columbia rigorously regulate the capacity of magazines — limiting them to 10 rounds, except for Colorado, which sets the limit at 15. While efforts to re-enact a federal ban have failed, laws like the one in New York offer a relatively direct state-level remedy: Weapons like assault rifles must have fixed, non-removable magazines, and they cannot hold more than 10 rounds. Yet thanks to overly generous readings of the Second Amendment, even common-sense solutions like New York’s law could be considered unconstitutional.
In March, a Federal District Court judge struck down the 10-round magazine limit long established in California law. The ruling in the case — Duncan v. Becerra — is startling for two reasons: first, magazine capacity limits had been consistently upheld in court; second, the judge concluded there is a Second Amendment right to own bullet magazines holding more than 10 rounds, calling it a core” right of the Second Amendment. The judge’s suspect, downright strange ruling is on appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where it may in the end be overturned.
In addition, the Supreme Court’s decision to accept an appeal to a lower court ruling upholding a New York City gun law suggests court members may be looking to revisit, and perhaps expand, gun rights. Leading the way is Justice Clarence Thomas, who in 2018 voiced his profound dissatisfaction with what he sees as the courts’ ill treatment of said rights since the high court’s 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, saying that the amendment had been treated “cavalierly,” as a “disfavored right,” and a “constitutional orphan.” Yet this is a far cry from the actual history of gun laws in America.
Their regulation of ammunition-feeding devices in this country dates back nearly a century. From 1927 to 1934, 16 states enacted laws that restricted magazine capacity, in some cases for fully automatic weapons only, in others for semi- and fully automatic weapons, and in some for all firearms of any type. Among the states that listed maximum capacity, they ranged from more than one round to a maximum of 18. And this was during the gun crime wave of the 1920s and early 1930s — when the weaponry we have now was the stuff of science fiction.
What greater purpose is there for large capacity magazines today, when weapons are even more efficiently deadly?
It seems clear that, at least for now, the United States is not going to seriously restrict the sale of military-style weapons. But we can at least restrict the tragic capabilities of their firepower. Judges shouldn’t stand in the way. The Constitution certainly doesn’t."
-
youthathletics
- Posts: 15227
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 7:36 pm
Re: Sensible Gun Control
Of course. To be clear, when I say mentally ill, I do not mean, Hannibal Lector straight-jacket mentally ill. It could be a modicum of mental health issues.
Sorry for not being clearer.
A fraudulent intent, however carefully concealed at the outset, will generally, in the end, betray itself.
~Livy
~Livy
Re: Sensible Gun Control
Seacoaster -- you are right that the mag size is a big part of the problem. But it is more than that.
MSSA rifles have a combination of features that really make them nutso for civilian use. Handguns can have big clips to, but they lack the total package of lethality features that the assault rifles do. Which is why these mass shooters most often pick assault rifles rather than high capacity semi-auto handguns.
1. Semi-auto firing.
2. Small, light, very high velocity rounds. Which creates much larger, deadlier wounds upon impact with the human body than other guns do.
3. A detachable clip which facilitates very quick reloads of clips (regardless of size).
4. High capacity clips of 30-100 rounds. The small light ammo makes the high capacity clips lighter, smaller and easier to handle.
5. Long barrel, pistol grip and low recoil. Which helps make the high volume output much more accurate.
Put it all together, and just about anyone can deliver huge amounts of accurate, highly lethal fire in almost no time.
Because it is the total package that really creates the lethality, you don't have to ban all the features in all guns to greatly reduce the risk. So you could limit the size of the clips to reduce the volume of fire. Alternatively, getting rid of the detachable clip feature would also cause a big (probably bigger) reduction.
MSSA rifles have a combination of features that really make them nutso for civilian use. Handguns can have big clips to, but they lack the total package of lethality features that the assault rifles do. Which is why these mass shooters most often pick assault rifles rather than high capacity semi-auto handguns.
1. Semi-auto firing.
2. Small, light, very high velocity rounds. Which creates much larger, deadlier wounds upon impact with the human body than other guns do.
3. A detachable clip which facilitates very quick reloads of clips (regardless of size).
4. High capacity clips of 30-100 rounds. The small light ammo makes the high capacity clips lighter, smaller and easier to handle.
5. Long barrel, pistol grip and low recoil. Which helps make the high volume output much more accurate.
Put it all together, and just about anyone can deliver huge amounts of accurate, highly lethal fire in almost no time.
Because it is the total package that really creates the lethality, you don't have to ban all the features in all guns to greatly reduce the risk. So you could limit the size of the clips to reduce the volume of fire. Alternatively, getting rid of the detachable clip feature would also cause a big (probably bigger) reduction.
Boycott stupid. If you ignore the gator troll, eventually he'll just go back under his bridge.
Re: Sensible Gun Control
The Texas terrorist drove from Dallas to El Paso (a nine-hour drive) because there are more hispanics in El Paso.runrussellrun wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2019 8:22 amWhy do all these "white supremicist" kill primarily white people ?
The Ohio terrorist appears to have been a plain-vanilla sociopath who hates everyone equally. He told a classmate in high school that he fantasized about tying her up and slitting her throat. But, hey, he should have weapons of mass destruction too!
Re: Sensible Gun Control
With respect to MSSA weapons, the 94-04 ban did a reasonably good job. Hard to believe, but at the time it was supported by Ford, Carter, Reagan and Clinton! That was back in the good old days before Washington (and especially the GOP) went completely down the tubes.
Had it been renewed and improved/modified in 2004, the rifles and the mags would have been virtually eliminated now. Instead, we've added 15 years of new hardware, making the problem so much larger and so much harder to fix.
Had it been renewed and improved/modified in 2004, the rifles and the mags would have been virtually eliminated now. Instead, we've added 15 years of new hardware, making the problem so much larger and so much harder to fix.
Boycott stupid. If you ignore the gator troll, eventually he'll just go back under his bridge.
-
MDlaxfan76
- Posts: 26407
- Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:40 pm
Re: Sensible Gun Control
Tru dat.ggait wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2019 2:44 pm With respect to MSSA weapons, the 94-04 ban did a reasonably good job. Hard to believe, but at the time it was supported by Ford, Carter, Reagan and Clinton! That was back in the good old days before Washington (and especially the GOP) went completely down the tubes.
Had it been renewed and improved/modified in 2004, the rifles and the mags would have been virtually eliminated now. Instead, we've added 15 years of new hardware, making the problem so much larger and so much harder to fix.
Much tougher now. But of course that's no excuse to not begin again.
Can we break the fever, finally?
Unfortunately, I don't think that happens until 2021...maybe.
-
runrussellrun
- Posts: 7565
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2018 11:07 am
Re: Sensible Gun Control
So, now we are just quibbiling about the number that "these" represents. got it.CU77 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2019 2:06 pmThe Texas terrorist drove from Dallas to El Paso (a nine-hour drive) because there are more hispanics in El Paso.runrussellrun wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2019 8:22 amWhy do all these "white supremicist" kill primarily white people ?
The Ohio terrorist appears to have been a plain-vanilla sociopath who hates everyone equally. He told a classmate in high school that he fantasized about tying her up and slitting her throat. But, hey, he should have weapons of mass destruction too!
You for selling weapons overseas? Hopefully your congressperson has been contacted to ban the guns.
ILM...Independent Lives Matter
Pronouns: "we" and "suck"
Pronouns: "we" and "suck"
Re: Sensible Gun Control
..
"The purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhibit clarity. With a little practice, writing can be an intimidating and impenetrable fog." - Calvin, to Hobbes
-
Typical Lax Dad
- Posts: 32926
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm
Re: Sensible Gun Control
We are going to find out the motivation. I have heard from 3 different people on the ground. Going to wait to see if it’s true. We will see if the order was his sister and her boyfriend and then others. Boyfriend survived. Time will tell.runrussellrun wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:19 pmSo, now we are just quibbiling about the number that "these" represents. got it.CU77 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2019 2:06 pmThe Texas terrorist drove from Dallas to El Paso (a nine-hour drive) because there are more hispanics in El Paso.runrussellrun wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2019 8:22 amWhy do all these "white supremicist" kill primarily white people ?
The Ohio terrorist appears to have been a plain-vanilla sociopath who hates everyone equally. He told a classmate in high school that he fantasized about tying her up and slitting her throat. But, hey, he should have weapons of mass destruction too!
You for selling weapons overseas? Hopefully your congressperson has been contacted to ban the guns.
“You lucky I ain’t read wretched yet!”
Re: Sensible Gun Control
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... yre-right/In Britain, there are now about 0.06 violent gun deaths per 100,000 residents. By contrast, there are roughly 4.43 violent gun deaths per 100,000 residents in the United States. In other words, even after accounting for population differences, the gun homicide rate in the United States is around 73 times higher than the same figure for Britain. And partly because guns are much more effective weapons to kill, the overall intentional homicide rate in the United States is about 4.5 times higher than Britain’s homicide rate.
Republicans on Fox News over the weekend trotted out the same tired excuses: video games are to blame, they said. President Trump claimed it was all about mental health. Both explanations are absurd. After adjusting for population, video game revenues between the United States and Britain are roughly equal. And even though video game revenues are substantially higher per capita in Japan than in the United States, there are roughly 111 Americans killed in gun homicides for every Japanese homicide victim even after adjusting for population. Mental health and substance abuse disorders are slightly higher in the United States than in Britain and Japan, but not dramatically so, and certainly not 73 or 111 times higher.
Underlining added.
Re: Sensible Gun Control
Strongly against it.
Just did it (and my two senators). Thanks for the idea.runrussellrun wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2019 4:19 pmHopefully your congressperson has been contacted to ban the guns.
Re: Sensible Gun Control
I don't care about the motivation, really. I want all the nut-jobs stripped of their weapons of mass destruction.
And since it's impossible to tell in advance who is and who is not a future mass murderer, I'm for keeping all weapons of mass destruction out of all private hands.
-
Typical Lax Dad
- Posts: 32926
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm
Re: Sensible Gun Control
That makes two of us. These assault rifles serve no purpose in civilian hands. Rent them at a gun range if that is a person’s idea of fun. This country is insane. More people in prison and more guns than any other country on the planet.CU77 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2019 6:51 pmI don't care about the motivation, really. I want all the nut-jobs stripped of their weapons of mass destruction.
And since it's impossible to tell in advance who is and who is not a future mass murderer, I'm for keeping all weapons of mass destruction out of all private hands.
“You lucky I ain’t read wretched yet!”