Here comes pipecleaner arms to lecture everyone on the differences between an assault rifle and a rifle. (Hint: nobody cares)
OT: Gabe Kapler
- Thread starter Knightmoves
- Start date
- Status
What insult did I use in this thread. Believe you calling me a troll was the first name calling between us. Which is kinda rich, really.
So we should figure out WHY all those other solutions aren't working but not why, ostensibly, gun regs aren't working in stricter states? Because you just outright dismissed them again, based on purported statistics you didn't actually cite.
How about we forget about bending inherently weak statistics when it comes to irrational statistical anomalies and look at the actual facts and circumstances of each incident. Like the fact that they don't meet the talking points your ilk trots out every time (i.e. illegal guns, need good guys with guns, just improve mental health, etc etc.)
And equip every school with impenetrable doors at every entrance? But, but ...if mass murderers can't get through doors by shooting through, they'll come back with a bomb, or a big rig,, or a tank, or a an angry grizzly. Or they'll show up at recess ...right?! Funny how it's all excuses for why gun regs won't work, but the same things don't apply for other (far more costly) ideas.
So we should figure out WHY all those other solutions aren't working but not why, ostensibly, gun regs aren't working in stricter states? Because you just outright dismissed them again, based on purported statistics you didn't actually cite.
How about we forget about bending inherently weak statistics when it comes to irrational statistical anomalies and look at the actual facts and circumstances of each incident. Like the fact that they don't meet the talking points your ilk trots out every time (i.e. illegal guns, need good guys with guns, just improve mental health, etc etc.)
And equip every school with impenetrable doors at every entrance? But, but ...if mass murderers can't get through doors by shooting through, they'll come back with a bomb, or a big rig,, or a tank, or a an angry grizzly. Or they'll show up at recess ...right?! Funny how it's all excuses for why gun regs won't work, but the same things don't apply for other (far more costly) ideas.
People should care about being accurate when discussing this stuff. Without accuracy and specificity, the entire discussion about school shootings becomes pointless exchanges of how we feel, rather than useful and pragmatic debates about achievable solutions.
There is no single definition for "assault rifle" or "assault weapon" and different states define it differently. There are numerous different types of rifles, where some of the differences are very relevant to any discussion on gun regulations and school shootings.
The term has far more value as a vague politically charged expression than any as a meaningfully accurate data point in any discussion about guns. Basically, all weapons are assault weapons. Motor vehicles and planes are assault weapons. A pencil can be an assault weapon. Bombs are assault weapons. A revolver is an assault weapon.
It's not a term that provides clarity in any way at all. It's a lot better to specify exactly what type of gun is being debated than to fall back on the ambiguous term "assault rifle". In fact, when it comes to AR-15s, the same ambiguity exists. There are the originals which were fully automated and more reasonably considered "military grade". And there are what's sold to the general public today, which are semiautomatic (like handguns) and not made to military specs.
Semiautomatic weapons are not all guns, are they? I don't believe someone who uses so many words could simply miss the glaring difference of adding such a pivotal word, so I'll take that as wilful misdirection. And people have really focused on AR15s and similar, seeing as how, if we look at the facts, those are used over and over again to perpetrate this kind of attack. I'm all for MadHat's sensible extra layer of regulation of such weapons and high-capacity magazines. Doesn't need to be an outright ban, but needs to be investigated.
As for the rest, provide quotes (you know, the kind of hard fact your arguments are all based on).
Each type of facility has its own security requirements. Schools needs are different than stores and shopping centers.I have a friend from Israel who says there’s an armed security guard in Tel Aviv outside of every Starbucks monitoring who comes and goes.
Btw did the Market in Buffalo have any of its own armed security onsite? If not then they need it.
There appears to be more violent people out there than we think. Videos from major US cities show the brazenness of the attackers. Doesn’t look like it’s going away anytime soon.
Last edited:
Or the 2A.
I've exhausted myself over on the CE board years ago trying to educate them on the realities and history of guns and the 2A.
It's not worth the effort. You can't reason someone out of a position they haven't used reason or logic to get themselves into. Especially when all they can process are feelings and hate.
I dipped my toe in here again but will try to resist re-engaging. It's such a waste of time and only serves to put more marginal people on my ignore list.
Any gun that can shoot multiple rounds like that need to be banned or strictly monitored. Your typical person who wants to own a gun to protect his family does not carry that kind of weapon though it could be on the rise because of all the criminals in our inner cities who shoot innocent children have those types of guns. Those guns are the problem IMO because stray bullets often kill kids even when they are not the targets. Adams wants them off the streets in NYC and he is right. He blames the illegal guns and lack of prosecution by the DA for the uptick in NYC shootings. He’s a Dem and I’m a republican and we agree. It’s common sense and should not be left vs right just like almost every other issue. I don’t form my opinions on any of these issues based on left or right. I use my own common sense.
Using more trolling in defense of prior trolling? Interesting concept, but I'm pretty sure all the intelligent folks reading all this understand that one doesn't have to call someone a name in order to insult them.
What part of the situation in WV where the woman with a legal gun shot and killed the felon firing his illegal semiautomatic rifle at a crowd is not actual facts and circumstances of an individual incident? And which of my "talking points" is not supported by that specific incident?
The stats for mass shootings are readily available. They were presented (by an ABC news graphic, I believe) in the very first post of the last thread about the TX shooting. That thread was moved to the CE board, so perhaps someone with access to the CE board can repost the link to that news article.
Here's an article with a graphic that shows (for 2019) the locations of the mass shootings in the US. As you can see, CA, with it's toughest in the nation gun laws, is mass shooter heaven. And WV, with virtually no gun laws, had none.
I didn't ask for a name. I asked for the insult. Surely, if I insulted you, that would be easier to just provide than misplaying silly word games.
The WV incident didn't happen in a school, for one, which is what we're actually talking about. So there's that. Also the fact that it was one incident out of dozens.
Interesting that we need to ignore other countries because they're too different but you repeatedly focus on a singlular incident that didn't take place in a school and comprises circumstances that don't relate to schools.
Where did I say "ban all guns". I said "ban guns". I don't think we should ban ANY guns.
But hey, if you want to ban revolvers, feel free. Because confronting an intruder armed with a 15 to 33 round Glock 19 Gen 5 semiautomatic pistol using a six-shooter isn't my idea of being appropriately prepared to defend oneself. No offense to Clint Eastwood. And Glocks are one of, if not the, most common handguns in the world. It'll piss off gun collectors, but I'm not a gun collector and don't care about gun collecting. I'll let them argue their position.
I am all for magazine restrictions on long guns such as the AR-15 style rifles sold to the public. I've said so several times now between this and the other thread. I said so before MadHat mentioned it.
Of course, when the intruder has a 30 round AR-15 and all we have are 5 round AR-15s, that presents a bit of problem. Which can be solved by ensuring there's no limit to the amount of ammo we can purchase to use at the shooting range. Said practice being pretty important seeing as how the intruder will have 6 times the opportunity to hit us than we'll have to hit them.
Because limiting law-abiding folks from protecting themselves is really gonna slow down psychotic people who set out to kill a bunch of school children. Clearly there's no possible other means of killing school children if we impose magazine limits. Maybe we should ban driving pickup trucks. Or recess. Or impose background checks on people at Home Depot who are buying fertilizer.
To which guns shooting multiple rounds are you referring? NJ already bans fully automatic weapons. So does TX.
From: https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.46.htm
"Sec. 46.05. PROHIBITED WEAPONS.
(a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly possesses, manufactures, transports, repairs, or sells:
(1) any of the following items, unless the item is registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record maintained by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives or otherwise not subject to that registration requirement or unless the item is classified as a curio or relic by the United States Department of Justice:
(A) an explosive weapon;
(B) a machine gun; or
(C) a short-barrel firearm;"
I am 100% for getting those illegal guns off the streets. In no small part because getting them off the streets means getting them away from criminals. Alas, the ATF and police haven't had monumental success in keeping them off the streets. Still, I hope they keep trying.
Semiautomatic weapons, however, are not banned in NJ or TX, nor should they be. The AR-15s sold to the public are semiautomatics, like the vast majority of legal handguns sold to the public these days. They require a trigger pull for each discharged round.
The 30 round magazines in AR-15 style rifles can be problematic, and I'm open to magazine limits for them. NJ's limit is 10 rounds for the public. Not sure TX has any limit. Perhaps they'll consider one now, but I doubt it.
Last edited:
Nobody said they always have red flags. But oftentimes we find out, after the fact, that they do.
What's your proposed better solution?
I’m agreeing with you and saying these crazed killers always seem to have red flags but no one takes any action ahead of time. After the massacre people say oh yeah he’s a nut snd he said online he would shoot a school to pieces.
btw
I figured most knew Tops Market had a retired police officer as security and he was killed by the gunman..
That info was in articles about the Buffalo supermarket massacre
He did get a shot off at the 18 year old mass murder , but that scumbag was wearing armor to go along with his legally purchased AR15
When guns are easily obtained , air tight security from evil doers can be hard to implement unless
a lot of money is involved.
You're right about this country getting more violent and unless things start changing to keep evildoers from legally obtaining mass murder weapons, expect another mass killing / protest about that mass killing/ gun control arguments to have another thread on this board because we can expect another mass killing to happen and since schools will be out, school kids might not be the target, but people like us and/or family and friends the innocent victims.
As for changes to gun laws, don't expect much to be done to protect the innocent, too many place their gun ownership rights ahead of people's lives.
Even if the gun law that could be enacted keeps their right to own a gun in place, just inconveniences them a little when they want to buy a new one
“You're right about this country getting more violent and unless things start changing to keep evildoers from legally obtaining mass murder weapons, expect another mass killing / protest about that mass killing/ gun control arguments to have another thread on this board because we can expect another mass killing to happen and since schools will be out, school kids might not be the target, but people like us and/or family and friends the innocent victims.”
You’re worried about legally purchased firearms.
What about the same firearms, bought by criminals, that are available illegally on the street?
I'm worried about legally purchased firearms by the wrong people.
With the way gun laws are today , many who shouldn't own guns fall though the cracks and can legally buy a weapon without any fuss .
Also the ability to buy a mass killing weapon and large clips easily because those who have every right to own their guns and buy more panic at the thought of passing laws restricting undesirables and the irresponsible from legally owning a weapon
Many criminals get their guns from those who buy guns legally in states with little gun control and sell them in stated that have strict gun control laws.
Also people not securing their guns where criminals can't easily get them when burglarizing homes.
You're not worried about the means to make ghost guns made by people that can legally buy the equipment to make a weapon , bypass restrictions placed on obtaining some of parts needed in making that weapon and then selling illegally on the street to any nut job or criminal that comes up wit the purchase price
Yes the gun is being made with an illegal part, but the equipment to make that ghost gun can be purched by crimminals that will make that gun using a restricted part obtained legally or illegally and then sold to possible mass killers or just plain old armed robbers that are willing to kill those they rob
Seems like people don't look at the whole picture and try to find a compromise so the 2nd amendment is protect and the public can be made safer from being the victim of gun violence..
The fear of being inconvenienced is more a problem then public safety and threats of mass killings .
Criminals and the mentally ill are used to fight gun control, even though the gun control laws will be made with them in mind while protecting the responsible gun owners right to keep their weapon and buy new ones if desired.
Until the lie of going to take your gun away defense of the gun law opposition stops , kids will continue to be massacred because of that lie, that has been proven repeatedly from Sandy Hook to the present Texas children massacre .
It's a life and death argument with death holding a big edge
don't expect that as long as the take away our gun lie is the law of opposing any gun control law that is made that keeps criminals and the mentally ill from legally owning a gun .
People fear losing their guns because they believe everyone is out to take their guns away , even though that's not the case
Also one way to keep the mass killings down would be to outlaw large clips and semi automatic assault weapons like the AR15.
Will that type of law stop mass killing, don't think so, but it will make mass killing harder and probably save a lot of lives.
edit by outlawing I mean for the general public to be sold to.
But restricted sales for some gun enthusiast need to be allowed , with saftey pecaustins put in place and proper storage aling with liability inmsuramnce part of the qualifactions to buy a weapon that can be used for a mass killing and clips that make killing a lot of people quickly need to be sold cautiously and buyer properly vetted.
Last edited:
People mean AR-15s and the like. It’s not that difficult and certainly does not require a novel response
It all starts at home. Not in every case but most of these nuts come from families with problems. I don’t know how that gets solved but that’s the common thread amongst most of these tragic events.
How many times do we have to rehash the stupidity of the "but cars" argument.
Tell you what, when the gun industry starts spending billions of dollars to create guns smart enough to avert disasters and accidents toward a goal of zero fatalities, you can bring that argument back with a clear conscience. Or when the auto industry stops. Otherwise, it doesn't work, you know it doesn't work and I'm going to call you out for playing dumb.
I also retorted all those other atrocious examples last time. When the weapon of choice becomes a bomb, truck, Wile E Coyote Rube Goldberg contraption or other, that argument might be half legitimate. But as it is, the logistics remain much easier with a gun than any of those weak examples so that's where the focus will be.
I read that three times. And I still have no idea what you’re trying to say here, nor what relevance any of it has to anything I’ve written.
Don’t know if you meant rebutted or rejected where you wrote retorted. But you haven’t logically or factually accomplished a rebuttal of what I’ve written in any post in either thread. You have misstated, mischaracterized and misrepresented me a bunch though. So, uh, good work, I guess.
Funny, I read your last four posts half a time and knew exactly what you were saying. Because you said it four additional times before that, in this thread alone. Tired talking points.
Sure, dude. Keep telling yourself that your facts about events that haven't actually happened stand tall
So, uh, good job expending 50,000 words to prove yourself a shallow shill with little more than the same hollow disproved talking points to offer. Again.
You sure don’t like loosing debates. A shallow shill?Funny, I read your last four posts half a time and knew exactly what you were saying. Because you said it four additional times before that, in this thread alone. Tired talking points.
Sure, dude. Keep telling yourself that your facts about events that haven't actually happened stand tall
So, uh, good job expending 50,000 words to prove yourself a shallow shill with little more than the same hollow disproved talking points to offer. Again.
I know you appreciate some alliteration...and the sh brings that real flow 
But there was no winning this debate, only losing the next time this same fkn thing happens.
BTW, despite accusations I'm misrepresentin what you say, you're forgetting what you actually said in all that word soup.
"Ban all guns" and "ban guns" is a distinction without a difference, anyway, but you said "all guns" multiple times, most notably:
"This is provably untrue. There are lots of folks who want to ban all guns. I had dinner with a close friend who said, and I quote: "if I had my way, I'd ban all guns" a couple days ago. And this is not an uncommon sentiment. I have family members who want to "ban all guns."
C'mon bro, you said it thrice in the same post!
Then, like an hour later,
"Where did I say "ban all guns". I said "ban guns". I don't think we should ban ANY guns."
I mean ...
But there was no winning this debate, only losing the next time this same fkn thing happens.
BTW, despite accusations I'm misrepresentin what you say, you're forgetting what you actually said in all that word soup.
"Ban all guns" and "ban guns" is a distinction without a difference, anyway, but you said "all guns" multiple times, most notably:
"This is provably untrue. There are lots of folks who want to ban all guns. I had dinner with a close friend who said, and I quote: "if I had my way, I'd ban all guns" a couple days ago. And this is not an uncommon sentiment. I have family members who want to "ban all guns."
C'mon bro, you said it thrice in the same post!
Then, like an hour later,
"Where did I say "ban all guns". I said "ban guns". I don't think we should ban ANY guns."
I mean ...
Ok, a few things.
- You keep citing to West Virginia and CA. But WV has a higher rate of firearm deaths. It's not the argument you think it is. In fact the rate of firearm deaths in WV is about double CA's rate.
Stats of the States - Firearm Mortality
www.cdc.gov
Not to mention, WV doesn't resemble most of America in any way, shape or form. It's a mostly rural state in a country where only 21% of Americans describe themselves as living in a rural area. In sheer numbers, WV may have less mass shootings than CA but it also has an incredibly smaller fraction of the population. It's an odds game.
Not to mention that Texas, in terms of sheer numbers, has had 4 of the most deadly mass shootings in American history alone while Abbott has been governor. America looks a lot more like Texas- a mix of urban, suburban and rural, than it does WV.
- You're not substantiating your argument that the rest of the world is different culturally. It's false in every which way.
America, like Canada and Australia, are frontier nations, former British colonies, immigration melting pots, with laws based on the common law system. If anything, they're more diverse than we are with higher percentages of foreign born citizens. Canada had a province vote on secession in our lifetimes. Both have very strong hunting traditions. Canada still to this day ranks among the highest globally in gun ownership. But they don't have this problem.
The reality is more of America looks like Toronto or Sydney and its suburbs than WV, even though that's irrelevant because WV has a high rate of firearm deaths.
- The police are "too far away" argument is a red herring. No one is saying people can't have a handgun in their home.
In fact, the SCOTUS clearly stated in the Heller case the 2A protects the right to a handgun in the home. So want to have one that you lock up and pass a background test for in your house? By all means. No one is arguing against that, and you're smart enough to realize that.
We had an assault weapons ban for 10 years. By your argument, crime would have skyrockted in rural areas during that time...it didn't.
- "Illegal guns" is another red herring because guns in mass shootings have always been LEGAL. The problems are very simple and the debate is as follows:
* 90% of Americans want universal background check. 10% say it's unfair
* 83% say ban AR-15. 17% have an issue.
* Overwhelming majorities support raising the purchase age to 21 and red flag laws, which red states have passed in significant number.
Like gay rights, abortion, etc.
People living in NJ get to make these kinds of arguments from the security of their cul de sac knowing the mentally ill people in their area can't access guns. They just want to stick with their political team. It's gross.
Probably because Chicago isn't even close to America's most dangerous city. Did you mean Houston or STL?
This says otherwise:
Why San Francisco Is Nearly The Most Crime-Ridden City In The US
San Franciscans face about a 1-in-16 chance each year of being a victim of property or violent crime, which makes the city more dangerous than 98 percent of US cities, both small and large. To put this in perspective, Compton, California, the infamous home of drug gang turf wars, and which today...www.hoover.org
You’re more likely to be a victim of a crime in SF than 98% of places in the country.
please link to your research stating otherwise.
The Hoover Institute is a right wing think tank- all those words used loosely- and the "study" deliberately conflates property crime with violent crime.
For example, Jacksonville, a city with a Republican mayor, had 128 more murders in 2020 than San Francisco, a city with a Democrat mayor, despite their comparable populations.
Mississippi has a murder rate 250% higher than CA. Why isn't that in the news?
Third Way
He doesn't know. There's rage on the CE that this issue is surfacing among other big Ls they took this week.
As much as they want to complain, at the end of the day this isn't an issue they have dexterity with...it's not a NJ thing. Guns aren't a personality here. And NJ has low levels of gun violence because we have effect gun laws.
That doesn't make me shallow, it makes me forgetful. Or fecklessly and feeble-mindedly forgetful.I know you appreciate some alliteration...and the sh brings that real flow
But there was no winning this debate, only losing the next time this same fkn thing happens.
BTW, despite accusations I'm misrepresentin what you say, you're forgetting what you actually said in all that word soup.
"Ban all guns" and "ban guns" is a distinction without a difference, anyway, but you said "all guns" multiple times, most notably:
"This is provably untrue. There are lots of folks who want to ban all guns. I had dinner with a close friend who said, and I quote: "if I had my way, I'd ban all guns" a couple days ago. And this is not an uncommon sentiment. I have family members who want to "ban all guns."
C'mon bro, you said it thrice in the same post!
Then, like an hour later,
"Where did I say "ban all guns". I said "ban guns". I don't think we should ban ANY guns."
I mean ...
Anyway, a member of this forum told me he would ban all guns, if he could, at dinner last weekend. And I think it's a safe bet that a sizeable number of folks here in this forum agree with him.
I'm 100% supportive of banning guns for felons or the psychologically unwell. Virtually everybody is supportive of that. So enforce that first before considering other gun bans. That would probably help cut down on ordinary gun violence.
But insofar as mass shootings, the evidence across the US show no meaningful correlation between gun laws and mass shooting frequency. Why point to some other nation when we have 50 states with 50 different sets of gun laws right here at home? WV has the same success as those other nations without much in the way of gun laws at all. Maybe we ought to be looking more closely at what they're doing.
Or we can, you know, rant about guns once again and watch as nothing happens and the mass shootings continue.
Israel also has strict gun control. I'm happy to bring their laws here. I hear so much about how Israel is wonderful, but when it comes to Israel's gun laws, or their healthcare system, or their free college, or their system of government that lacks an Electoral College and Wyoming getting the same say. as California..it's a weird silence. A real mystery, that.
We also have armed guards in major tourist locations (eg Times Square) and have since 9/11.
The Buffalo supermarket had an armed guard...who was shot and killed. The shooter had a bulletproof vest.
I am not sure that Tulsa is a "major city" never mind Uvalde...to put this off as a city problem is just obscuring reality.
Because WV and California are not more similar than the US and the UK. Also because these shootings are very random. What WV is mostly doing is being lucky.
Ah, I see. So WV is mostly lucky, CA is just unlucky, and the UK's results are all down to skill and intelligence. That makes perfect sense.
Well, at least you've produced yet another strong argument for why all gun legislation, in the US, should take place at the state or local level. We'll just kind of overlook the logic flaw in saying the US and the UK are more alike than CA and WV, despite CA and WV being part of the US you're comparing to the UK.
- Status