Remember me
▼ Content

Recent Mass Shootings (since 2016)



Page 1 of 212>
Recent Mass Shootings (since 2016)05-08-2019 05:10
James___
★★★★☆
(1605)
The US is on a roll. Probably just a reflection of society in general.
Not a problem though. There's the 2nd Amendment while the preamble states domestic tranquility. Having a life isn't a right. It's not in the Bill of Rights. That's really all that matters.
Isn't it strange? American citizens don't have the right to a life. It's not in the Bill of Rights.

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2019-08-03/united-states-mass-shootings
Edited on 05-08-2019 05:11
05-08-2019 07:41
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4936)
James___ wrote:
The US is on a roll. Probably just a reflection of society in general.

Leftist wingnuts are on a roll.

Prior to the Texas Wal-Mart shooting, every victim of a mass shooting who was not a law enforcement officer was himself or herself required to be defenseless at the time.

Now, the Texas Wal-Mart shooting ... keeps the figure at 100%!

Meanwhile, the humanity-hating Democrats push to make all of the U.S. one large defenseless zone while blaming law abiding citizens who want to be able to defend themselves and the lives of their families. Democrats are determined to convert the U.S. into Venezuela II.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uOBSssoPY8E


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
05-08-2019 07:59
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1329)
IBdaMann wrote:Democrats push to make all of the U.S. one large defenseless zone


If anyone is of the opinion that a country in which guns are illegal is safer there are a lot of examples. The question would be what country does the U.S. resemble most aside from the gun issue?
I'm not going to go with Venezuela.
I think it's fair to say we "made better choices" across the board not just when it comes to guns.
So IBdaMann what country do you think most resembles the US in terms of economic instability (since that's the crime zone) and other tensions?

wikipedia (references all there)

Firearm related deaths, homicide per 100,000:
US 4.46
Venzuela 26.48 (2013) still worlds highest after gun ban
Mexico 6.34
UK 0.06
France 0.21
Canada 0.61 (lots of guns in Canada)

I'm not sure.

Venezuela isn't a good comparison for anything though other than how not to destroy a country completely. The government wanted to disarm the population for obvious reasons and it wasn't for tourism.

Should fully automatic machine guns be legal in the US IBdaMann?
05-08-2019 08:39
James___
★★★★☆
(1605)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:Democrats push to make all of the U.S. one large defenseless zone


If anyone is of the opinion that a country in which guns are illegal is safer there are a lot of examples. The question would be what country does the U.S. resemble most aside from the gun issue?
I'm not going to go with Venezuela.
I think it's fair to say we "made better choices" across the board not just when it comes to guns.
So IBdaMann what country do you think most resembles the US in terms of economic instability (since that's the crime zone) and other tensions?

wikipedia (references all there)

Firearm related deaths, homicide per 100,000:
US 4.46
Venzuela 26.48 (2013) still worlds highest after gun ban
Mexico 6.34
UK 0.06
France 0.21
Canada 0.61 (lots of guns in Canada)

I'm not sure.

Venezuela isn't a good comparison for anything though other than how not to destroy a country completely. The government wanted to disarm the population for obvious reasons and it wasn't for tourism.

Should fully automatic machine guns be legal in the US IBdaMann?


https://youtu.be/K2IOZ-5Nk5k
05-08-2019 09:07
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1329)
James___ wrote:
https://youtu.be/K2IOZ-5Nk5k


I didn't realize bump stocks pretty much made it a real machine gun. Crazy that shit was legal.

To quote the video's host "Anything can be turned into something bad" ha ha

I love that one.

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people" (usually with guns, even without guns you'd still have fist fights)

What I've noticed (maybe I'm wrong) is that almost all of the gun violence is with legal guns (they may not have been legally registered but the type/tech is legal).

You never see RPG attacks (where available they only run $2500 loaded), gatlin gun, or even fully automatic machine guns of any kind.

The bump stock in Vegas was a perfect example. It was a legal accessory.

Maybe legal guns are "good enough" so criminals don't want more.
Edited on 05-08-2019 09:08
05-08-2019 10:52
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1378)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:Democrats push to make all of the U.S. one large defenseless zone


If anyone is of the opinion that a country in which guns are illegal is safer there are a lot of examples. The question would be what country does the U.S. resemble most aside from the gun issue?
I'm not going to go with Venezuela.
I think it's fair to say we "made better choices" across the board not just when it comes to guns.
So IBdaMann what country do you think most resembles the US in terms of economic instability (since that's the crime zone) and other tensions?

wikipedia (references all there)

Firearm related deaths, homicide per 100,000:
US 4.46
Venzuela 26.48 (2013) still worlds highest after gun ban
Mexico 6.34
UK 0.06
France 0.21
Canada 0.61 (lots of guns in Canada)

I'm not sure.

Venezuela isn't a good comparison for anything though other than how not to destroy a country completely. The government wanted to disarm the population for obvious reasons and it wasn't for tourism.

Should fully automatic machine guns be legal in the US IBdaMann?


I don't think those numbers accurately reflect the number of people killed, or seriously injured through violence. You don't need a gun to kill someone. The UK has very strict gun laws, but didn't change the number of violent crimes much, more stabbings an beatings. They even put restrictions on the knives people are allowed to carry. Haven't look into how that one turned out.

Venezuela is a good example of going to the socialist left (Bernie's dream), and what democrats are pushing for us. Banning guns, you'll find that only the law abiding folks would turn them in, and obey the laws. They were never the problem. Those that rob and kill, already have no regard for the law, and kept theirs, or found ways to get some guns. In socialism, the vast majority don't have much, and totally dependent on government handouts, which are slow coming. Crime is much more appealing, even if it's just a few guns or ammunition from work, that frequently go missing anyway (other people are doing it). Thing about free stuff, is that you get more people, wanting everything they are entitled to, all the time, whether they want it or need it. It's free, and something you can sell or trade later on. Free stuff, is never free though, it all gets paid for, by somebody. Listen to the democrat candidates speak, they all pretty much agree that the American people deserve, need, more free programs. Their go to source of money, to pay for these things, is taxing the wealthy. You obviously can't target the rich, that's discrimination. They'll still be rich, just move their money into none taxable things, or out of the country. Some would simply leave the country all together. That tax the rich well would run dry quickly.

I've questioned why semi-automatic rifles are legal... It's a right, and they are fun as hell. But never got an answer as to why fully automatic aren't legal. I mean, wouldn't be a lot more fun, to just pull the trigger, empty a clip in just a few seconds. You can still empty a clip pretty quick, with a semi-automatic, just a little less convenient, which is the main point.
05-08-2019 12:12
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1329)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Venezuela is a good example of going to the socialist left (Bernie's dream),


I'm pretty sure it could be called a fascist state too. Supreme leader and all. We have that in North Korea (communist), Russia (Miscellaneous), the Philippines (capitalist?), and maybe China? (term limits to be suspended). I think the argument can be made it's hard to have a lasting communist state that isn't also a fascist state with a King.

The way to go is a socialist sate like we have and Europe has. Somethings are free for everyone: Police, primary school, roads and some services (food stamps). Other things you have to earn (everything fun). Just like the UK, France, Mexico, and all the democracies similar to our own. It's just a question of how much is free.

If you're arguing that the UK has a lot on non-gun murders? stabbings? I think it's safe to say guns work really well. No way they don't make murdering folks more effective and efficient.

So Harvey are you in favor of more types of guns being legal? How about RPGs? (I want one) Heavy machine guns?

Have you ever wondered why criminals don't have RPGs? I mean they are illegal but a criminal doesn't care if somethings illegal as you said.
05-08-2019 15:20
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4936)
tmiddles wrote: The question would be what country does the U.S. resemble most aside from the gun issue?

The United States is unique; there are no valid comparisons currently.

tmiddles wrote: I'm not going to go with Venezuela.

You can't really go with any country. The United States is the greatest country on the planet, especially now that Trump has us on track again. You can't be better than everyone else if you're just like everyone else, and we don't want to suck, so we don't want to be like others just to be like others, especially Venezuela.

tmiddles wrote:
Firearm related deaths, homicide per 100,000:

I'm sorry, this is useless data. I need to know the following:

1) How many of those homicide victims were themselves carrying a functioning firearm at the time they were killed?

2) How many of the homicide victims' lives were saved by police preventing the homicide?

Let's focus on these statistics first.

*THEN* we can talk about London, where you'll find the strictest gun control *and* knife control, and correspondingly a higher murder rate than New York City.

I absolutely do not want my country going down this road of insanity:



Selling, buying and carrying knives
The maximum penalty for an adult carrying a knife is 4 years in prison and an unlimited fine. You'll get a prison sentence if you're convicted of carrying a knife more than once.

Basic laws on knives
It's illegal to:

sell a knife to anyone under 18, unless it has a folding blade 3 inches long (7.62 cm) or less
carry a knife in public without good reason, unless it has a folding blade with a cutting edge 3 inches long or less
carry, buy or sell any type of banned knife
use any knife in a threatening way (even a legal knife)
Scotland
In Scotland, 16 to 18 year olds are allowed to buy cutlery and kitchen knives.

Lock knives
Lock knives are not classed as folding knives and are illegal to carry in public without good reason. Lock knives:

have blades that can be locked and refolded only by pressing a button
can include multi-tool knives - tools that also contain other devices such as a screwdriver or can opener
Banned knives and weapons
It is illegal to bring into the UK, sell, hire, lend or give anyone the following:

butterfly knives (also known as 'balisongs') - a blade hidden inside a handle that splits in the middle
disguised knives - a blade or sharp point hidden inside what looks like everyday objects such as a buckle, phone, brush or lipstick
flick knives (also known as 'switchblades' or 'automatic knives') - a blade hidden inside a handle which shoots out when a button is pressed
gravity knives
stealth knives - a knife or spike not made from metal (except when used at home, for food or a toy)
zombie knives - a knife with a cutting edge, a serrated edge and images or words suggesting it is used for violence
swords, including samurai swords - a curved blade over 50cm (with some exceptions, such as antiques and swords made to traditional methods before 1954)
sword-sticks - a hollow walking stick or cane containing a blade
push daggers
blowpipes ('blow gun')
telescopic truncheons - extend automatically by pressing button or spring in the handle
batons - straight, side-handled or friction-lock truncheons
hollow kubotans - a cylinder-shaped keychain holding spikes
shurikens (also known as 'shaken', 'death stars' or 'throwing stars')
kusari-gama - a sickle attached to a rope, cord or wire
kyoketsu-shoge - a hook-knife attached to a rope, cord or wire
kusari (or 'manrikigusari') - a weight attached to a rope, cord, wire
hand or foot-claws
knuckledusters
Contact your local police to check if a knife or weapon is illegal.

Good reasons for carrying a knife or weapon
Examples of good reasons to carry a knife or weapon in public can include:

taking knives you use at work to and from work
taking it to a gallery or museum to be exhibited
if it'll be used for theatre, film, television, historical reenactment or religious purposes, for example the kirpan some Sikhs carry
if it'll be used in a demonstration or to teach someone how to use it
A court will decide if you've got a good reason to carry a knife or a weapon if you're charged with carrying it illegally.


tmiddles wrote: Venezuela isn't a good comparison for anything though other than how not to destroy a country completely.

Venezuela is an excellent example of how to destroy a country completely and I intend to reference this example when Democrat candidates regurgitate Hugo Chavez' platform.

All the Democrats are running on the Chavez platform, they're just doing it in English, to include hating America, hating capitalism, banning firearms, demonizing businesses that are successful, promising free stuff to get votes as a means of staying in power, etc...

Any rational person can see why Trump is already reelected.

tmiddles wrote: The government wanted to disarm the population for obvious reasons and it wasn't for tourism.

One way to recognize a tyrannical government is by its efforts to ban firearms.

Ergo, one way to prevent a tyrranical government is to not elect Democrats.

tmiddles wrote:Should fully automatic machine guns be legal in the US IBdaMann?

Absolutely.

Are you asking me to what extent the Federal government should infringe on the right of the people to bear arms?

Let me ask you, to what extent do you believe the Federal government should infringe on the right of the people to bear arms?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
05-08-2019 15:32
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4936)
James___ wrote:https://youtu.be/K2IOZ-5Nk5k

Great video. I'm going to link this on politiplex.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
05-08-2019 19:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9602)
James___ wrote:
The US is on a roll. Probably just a reflection of society in general.
Not a problem though. There's the 2nd Amendment while the preamble states domestic tranquility. Having a life isn't a right. It's not in the Bill of Rights. That's really all that matters.
Isn't it strange? American citizens don't have the right to a life. It's not in the Bill of Rights.

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2019-08-03/united-states-mass-shootings


Rights are not enumerated in the Constitution, dumbass. There are more rights than what is listed in the Constitution.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 05-08-2019 19:33
05-08-2019 19:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9602)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:Democrats push to make all of the U.S. one large defenseless zone


If anyone is of the opinion that a country in which guns are illegal is safer there are a lot of examples. The question would be what country does the U.S. resemble most aside from the gun issue?
I'm not going to go with Venezuela.
I think it's fair to say we "made better choices" across the board not just when it comes to guns.
So IBdaMann what country do you think most resembles the US in terms of economic instability (since that's the crime zone) and other tensions?

wikipedia (references all there)

Firearm related deaths, homicide per 100,000:
US 4.46
Venzuela 26.48 (2013) still worlds highest after gun ban
Mexico 6.34
UK 0.06
France 0.21
Canada 0.61 (lots of guns in Canada)

I'm not sure.

Venezuela isn't a good comparison for anything though other than how not to destroy a country completely. The government wanted to disarm the population for obvious reasons and it wasn't for tourism.

Should fully automatic machine guns be legal in the US IBdaMann?


They ARE legal in the US.


The Parrot Killer
05-08-2019 19:47
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9602)
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:
https://youtu.be/K2IOZ-5Nk5k


I didn't realize bump stocks pretty much made it a real machine gun. Crazy that shit was legal.

The are still legal. Banning them is unconstitutional. Also, you can do the same thing with a fat gut or even with a water bottle. Trump quite clearly directed the BATF to create an unconstitutional regulation.
tmiddles wrote:
To quote the video's host "Anything can be turned into something bad" ha ha

I love that one.

Even a fat gut.
tmiddles wrote:
"Guns don't kill people, people kill people" (usually with guns, even without guns you'd still have fist fights)

You can't stop guns or any other weapon. They are just too easy to make. Have you forgotten swords? Bombs? Arrows?
tmiddles wrote:
What I've noticed (maybe I'm wrong) is that almost all of the gun violence is with legal guns (they may not have been legally registered but the type/tech is legal).

The 2nd amendment does not specify weapon by type or technology.
tmiddles wrote:
You never see RPG attacks (where available they only run $2500 loaded), gatlin gun, or even fully automatic machine guns of any kind.

You never see mass murders in shooting ranges either. They only take place in 'gun free' zones.
tmiddles wrote:
The bump stock in Vegas was a perfect example. It was a legal accessory.

It still is. Thankfully, the Las Vegas shooter used them. He missed most of the time because of them.
tmiddles wrote:
Maybe legal guns are "good enough" so criminals don't want more.

Criminals have any gun they want, including machine guns.

Fortunately, there a LOT more good guys with guns than bad guys with guns.

This is yet another attempt by the liberals to punish 80 million law abiding citizens for the actions of one that went crazy with a gun.

Ban the 'gun free zone', not the gun.


The Parrot Killer
05-08-2019 19:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9602)
HarveyH55 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:Democrats push to make all of the U.S. one large defenseless zone


If anyone is of the opinion that a country in which guns are illegal is safer there are a lot of examples. The question would be what country does the U.S. resemble most aside from the gun issue?
I'm not going to go with Venezuela.
I think it's fair to say we "made better choices" across the board not just when it comes to guns.
So IBdaMann what country do you think most resembles the US in terms of economic instability (since that's the crime zone) and other tensions?

wikipedia (references all there)

Firearm related deaths, homicide per 100,000:
US 4.46
Venzuela 26.48 (2013) still worlds highest after gun ban
Mexico 6.34
UK 0.06
France 0.21
Canada 0.61 (lots of guns in Canada)

I'm not sure.

Venezuela isn't a good comparison for anything though other than how not to destroy a country completely. The government wanted to disarm the population for obvious reasons and it wasn't for tourism.

Should fully automatic machine guns be legal in the US IBdaMann?


I don't think those numbers accurately reflect the number of people killed, or seriously injured through violence. You don't need a gun to kill someone. The UK has very strict gun laws, but didn't change the number of violent crimes much, more stabbings an beatings. They even put restrictions on the knives people are allowed to carry. Haven't look into how that one turned out.

Venezuela is a good example of going to the socialist left (Bernie's dream), and what democrats are pushing for us. Banning guns, you'll find that only the law abiding folks would turn them in, and obey the laws. They were never the problem. Those that rob and kill, already have no regard for the law, and kept theirs, or found ways to get some guns. In socialism, the vast majority don't have much, and totally dependent on government handouts, which are slow coming. Crime is much more appealing, even if it's just a few guns or ammunition from work, that frequently go missing anyway (other people are doing it). Thing about free stuff, is that you get more people, wanting everything they are entitled to, all the time, whether they want it or need it. It's free, and something you can sell or trade later on. Free stuff, is never free though, it all gets paid for, by somebody. Listen to the democrat candidates speak, they all pretty much agree that the American people deserve, need, more free programs. Their go to source of money, to pay for these things, is taxing the wealthy. You obviously can't target the rich, that's discrimination. They'll still be rich, just move their money into none taxable things, or out of the country. Some would simply leave the country all together. That tax the rich well would run dry quickly.

I've questioned why semi-automatic rifles are legal... It's a right, and they are fun as hell. But never got an answer as to why fully automatic aren't legal. I mean, wouldn't be a lot more fun, to just pull the trigger, empty a clip in just a few seconds. You can still empty a clip pretty quick, with a semi-automatic, just a little less convenient, which is the main point.


Few guns use clips. Most use magazines.

You can go to a range right now and rent a machine gun and shoot it. There will be an instructor behind you to catch you when you fall.

Most people have no idea what kind of power those things put out!

Machine guns are legal. You can own one today. There is some unconstitutional paperwork you have to go through, but you can own one today. They are lousy for actually killing much though. You go through a lot of ammunition (expensive!) and don't hit much with them. Controlling their aim is a LOT more difficult than people realize.

Most mass murders are done with a pistol, often a .22.


The Parrot Killer
05-08-2019 20:01
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1378)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Venezuela is a good example of going to the socialist left (Bernie's dream),


I'm pretty sure it could be called a fascist state too. Supreme leader and all. We have that in North Korea (communist), Russia (Miscellaneous), the Philippines (capitalist?), and maybe China? (term limits to be suspended). I think the argument can be made it's hard to have a lasting communist state that isn't also a fascist state with a King.

The way to go is a socialist sate like we have and Europe has. Somethings are free for everyone: Police, primary school, roads and some services (food stamps). Other things you have to earn (everything fun). Just like the UK, France, Mexico, and all the democracies similar to our own. It's just a question of how much is free.

If you're arguing that the UK has a lot on non-gun murders? stabbings? I think it's safe to say guns work really well. No way they don't make murdering folks more effective and efficient.

So Harvey are you in favor of more types of guns being legal? How about RPGs? (I want one) Heavy machine guns?

Have you ever wondered why criminals don't have RPGs? I mean they are illegal but a criminal doesn't care if somethings illegal as you said.


No, I don't believe the general population needs military, or military-style weapons. Personally, I think we would be better of with fewer of the semi-automatic weapons, easily purchased anywhere. They are the weapon of choice, for many of these mass shootings for a reason. They were design to kill a lot of people, quickly, efficiently. They are lightweight, fold up, break down, for convenience, but ready to use in under a minute. There are larger magazine options, than handguns. Plenty of excuses, rationalizations for owning them, but nothing that can't be accomplished with a lever or bolt action. Just because you have the right, the entitlement, doesn't make it a good idea for everyone. There is always going to be a few people, who spoil every hobby, but usually it doesn't leave dozens of bodies behind.

I'd like to see more people, open carry, as a deterrent. It's not any easy target for a mass shooting, if there are other armed people, who can shoot back. I think most of the mass shooters expect to die anyway, but they seem to want to take a bunch of people with them. People they have never met, don't even know. Don't think they want to die, before they got the first shot off. Besides, those carrying openly, are primary targets, everybody else can only run and hide, not shoot back. You proudly support your right to bear arms, and proudly carry, you should have the testicles to use it, when needed.

I think video games play a big role in these mass shootings, great way to babysit your kids. Unfortunately, a lot of kids become difficult to pry away from them after a while. Lot of parents are okay with it though, because they know where there kid is, and what they are doing, from the gunfire coming from their room. Least they aren't out roaming the streets, looking for trouble. Shooting games have always been most popular, and involve some sort of semi-automatic, automatic weapon, and killing something. This isn't a great skill for kids to master, while neglecting other activities, even their school work. After they grow up, get out on their own, they find life to be hard work, a struggle, they were only good at one thing, and that doesn't pay so well.
05-08-2019 20:02
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4936)
Into the Night wrote:Few guns use clips. Most use magazines.

The fun ones are belt-fed from a can.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
05-08-2019 23:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9602)
HarveyH55 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Venezuela is a good example of going to the socialist left (Bernie's dream),


I'm pretty sure it could be called a fascist state too. Supreme leader and all. We have that in North Korea (communist), Russia (Miscellaneous), the Philippines (capitalist?), and maybe China? (term limits to be suspended). I think the argument can be made it's hard to have a lasting communist state that isn't also a fascist state with a King.

The way to go is a socialist sate like we have and Europe has. Somethings are free for everyone: Police, primary school, roads and some services (food stamps). Other things you have to earn (everything fun). Just like the UK, France, Mexico, and all the democracies similar to our own. It's just a question of how much is free.

If you're arguing that the UK has a lot on non-gun murders? stabbings? I think it's safe to say guns work really well. No way they don't make murdering folks more effective and efficient.

So Harvey are you in favor of more types of guns being legal? How about RPGs? (I want one) Heavy machine guns?

Have you ever wondered why criminals don't have RPGs? I mean they are illegal but a criminal doesn't care if somethings illegal as you said.


No, I don't believe the general population needs military, or military-style weapons.

[/quote]
What about a rogue military? If the military can have 'em. I can have 'em.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Personally, I think we would be better of with fewer of the semi-automatic weapons, easily purchased anywhere.

Gun free zones don't work. That's where mass murders tend to occur.
HarveyH55 wrote:
They are the weapon of choice, for many of these mass shootings for a reason.

The 2nd amendment does not specify type of action.
HarveyH55 wrote:
They were design to kill a lot of people, quickly, efficiently.

So can a sword. I could kill just as many unarmed people with a sword, if I had the mind to do it.
HarveyH55 wrote:
They are lightweight, fold up, break down, for convenience, but ready to use in under a minute.

Pistols don't generally fold up. Only a few rifles do, and are convenient for packing in cars, etc.
HarveyH55 wrote:
There are larger magazine options, than handguns.

Magazine size makes no difference. You can reload a new magazine in about a second with a small amount of practice. Shooting rates during mass murders is generally less than once a second. Most shooting rates are no greater than a Winchester repeater from the late 1800's.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Plenty of excuses, rationalizations for owning them, but nothing that can't be accomplished with a lever or bolt action.

The 2nd amendment does not specify a type of action, or even a type of weapon.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Just because you have the right, the entitlement, doesn't make it a good idea for everyone.

No one is required to carry a gun. No one is allowed to prevent someone else from carrying a gun.
HarveyH55 wrote:
There is always going to be a few people, who spoil every hobby, but usually it doesn't leave dozens of bodies behind.

It's not just a hobby. Guns are used to protect people and property, to hunt, for pest removal, and to allow the population to defend themselves from rogue government agents or a rogue government.
HarveyH55 wrote:
I'd like to see more people, open carry, as a deterrent.

It works for some cases, but sometimes it is better to carry concealed. Most mass shooters open carry.
HarveyH55 wrote:
It's not any easy target for a mass shooting,

Yes it is.
HarveyH55 wrote:
if there are other armed people, who can shoot back.

If someone is shooting at you, don't you think you ought to shoot back if you can?
HarveyH55 wrote:
I think most of the mass shooters expect to die anyway, but they seem to want to take a bunch of people with them.

If they can't be famous, they would rather be infamous. Social media, dude.
HarveyH55 wrote:
People they have never met, don't even know.

The generally DO know their victims, even on a superficial level.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Don't think they want to die, before they got the first shot off. Besides, those carrying openly, are primary targets, everybody else can only run and hide, not shoot back.

You can shoot back if you carry concealed, too. Did you know that?
HarveyH55 wrote:
You proudly support your right to bear arms, and proudly carry, you should have the testicles to use it, when needed.

I do.
HarveyH55 wrote:
I think video games play a big role in these mass shootings,

None. Oddly enough, most young video gamers are afraid of actual guns.
HarveyH55 wrote:
great way to babysit your kids.

It's like TV. Too much is simply wasting their lives away. It IS a form of entertainment that is quite popular these days. Certainly no worse than watching a Marvel film or reading one of their comic books.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Unfortunately, a lot of kids become difficult to pry away from them after a while.

That's easy to fix. Any video game console has parental controls on them.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Lot of parents are okay with it though, because they know where there kid is, and what they are doing, from the gunfire coming from their room.

Sure beats drugs or shooting up the neighborhood for real.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Least they aren't out roaming the streets, looking for trouble.

Like I said.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Shooting games have always been most popular, and involve some sort of semi-automatic, automatic weapon, and killing something.

Usually zombies. First person shooters are not the most popular genre of video games. The most popular genre are competitive fighting games, such as Smash Bros., or Splatoon. Simulation games come next, such as Farming simulators or flight simulators. Beyond that are open world sandbox games, such as Zelda, Assassin's Creed, or the Elder Scroll series. Sports games come next, such as golf, tennis, bowling, and boxing games. Finally, after all that, come first person shooters.
HarveyH55 wrote:
This isn't a great skill for kids to master, while neglecting other activities, even their school work.

Like TV, it can tend to take over ones life. So can social media. For adults, so can gambling or drinking or even shooting pool.
HarveyH55 wrote:
After they grow up, get out on their own, they find life to be hard work, a struggle, they were only good at one thing, and that doesn't pay so well.

Here the parents can really influence. What they have to do is to show them there is a ton of fun stuff out there to do besides video games.

Some parents are better at it than others.


The Parrot Killer
05-08-2019 23:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9602)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Few guns use clips. Most use magazines.

The fun ones are belt-fed from a can.


Heh. Canned mayhem?


The Parrot Killer
06-08-2019 01:54
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4936)
Into the Night wrote: You can reload a new magazine in about a second with a small amount of practice.

Not me. I take three seconds, sometimes four.

Yep, I know, I'm slow. Feel free to poke fun.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
06-08-2019 02:30
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1329)
hand gun
long gun
machine gun
hand grenade
mortar
RPG
tank

As weapons are "serious" there should be some regulation. There are three valid and important reasons to have weapons:

- Recreation
- Self Defense against individuals
- Self Defense against your own government

So let's all go watch Red Dawn and come back with where we'd draw the line : )
06-08-2019 02:54
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9602)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote: You can reload a new magazine in about a second with a small amount of practice.

Not me. I take three seconds, sometimes four.

Yep, I know, I'm slow. Feel free to poke fun.


Klutz.



The Parrot Killer
06-08-2019 02:55
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9602)
tmiddles wrote:
hand gun
long gun
machine gun
hand grenade
mortar
RPG
tank

As weapons are "serious" there should be some regulation. There are three valid and important reasons to have weapons:

- Recreation
- Self Defense against individuals
- Self Defense against your own government

So let's all go watch Red Dawn and come back with where we'd draw the line : )


The 2nd amendment does not specify a purpose for owning or bearing arms.

Neither do you. You don't get to 'draw the line'. Neither does the federal government (legally) nor any State government (legally). The States are bound to the 2nd amendment as well.

Why do you want to punish 80 million people for the crime of what 1 person has done?


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 06-08-2019 02:58
06-08-2019 04:03
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1378)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
hand gun
long gun
machine gun
hand grenade
mortar
RPG
tank

As weapons are "serious" there should be some regulation. There are three valid and important reasons to have weapons:

- Recreation
- Self Defense against individuals
- Self Defense against your own government

So let's all go watch Red Dawn and come back with where we'd draw the line : )


The 2nd amendment does not specify a purpose for owning or bearing arms.

Neither do you. You don't get to 'draw the line'. Neither does the federal government (legally) nor any State government (legally). The States are bound to the 2nd amendment as well.

Why do you want to punish 80 million people for the crime of what 1 person has done?


But it's not the act of one person, it's getting to be several people every year. And, don't the lives of the hundreds, if not thousands of people directly effected by these individuals matter?

The Constitution can be update, amended. Couple hundred million were punished by ObamaCare, so that 50 million could have health insurance, whether they wanted/needed it... Insurance isn't healthcare, nor does it really make it affordable, just takes more money, out more people's paychecks, more often, to pay for a product the vast majority of the population doesn't even need.

Since the 2nd Amendment doesn't specify the weapon, why not full automatic? High explosives, landmines, hand grenades, mortars, rockets? Why aren't all the weapons our tax dollars buy for our military, available to the general public as well? They aren't mentioned in the 2nd Amendment either.

In Ohio, the police stated it took about 30 seconds to kill the shooter, from the first shots fired. He still killed 9 people, quite a few others wounded. It's not clear how many of the wounded were shot, fell, or trampled in the chaos. Hundreds got hurt, in a less physical way, but just as painful. The dead, aren't the only victims, and they all matter. 30 seconds is pretty quick response, still a lot of damage done.

Sure, we have rights, the Constitution says so. But we also have a huge problem, and it's been getting worse. We amend the constitution, to fix problems. How many more people need to get killed, wounded, lose family and friends this way, before you consider it a problem requiring a solution? We have the right to bare arms, but we also have a right to modify the laws. This is one of those things that needs to be modernized. Our founding fathers didn't have these problems, nor would they have imagined it. Much different times.
06-08-2019 04:39
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4936)
tmiddles wrote:So let's all go watch Red Dawn and come back with where we'd draw the line : )

It is bogus to assume that the government must somehow be drawing lines for us. We the People draw lines for the government, not the other way around.

I'll grant a need for the Federal government to draw some lines with respect to interstate commerce.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
06-08-2019 07:23
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1329)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:So let's all go watch Red Dawn and come back with where we'd draw the line : )

It is bogus to assume that the government must somehow be drawing lines for us. We the People draw lines for the government, not the other way around.

I'll grant a need for the Federal government to draw some lines with respect to interstate commerce.


Yeah I said where would you draw the line. Do you think I should be allowed to legal acquire a gatlin gun?
06-08-2019 07:24
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1329)
Into the Night wrote:
The 2nd amendment does not specify


Do we know if private citizens were allowed to own artillery at the time the amendment was written

I wonder
Edited on 06-08-2019 07:26
06-08-2019 10:25
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1378)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The 2nd amendment does not specify


Do we know if private citizens were allowed to own artillery at the time the amendment was written

I wonder


Pretty sure you were allowed to own pretty much anything you wanted. Probably not to many could afford them though. People bought things the could use, and used them as they were meant be used.
06-08-2019 16:47
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4936)
HarveyH55 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The 2nd amendment does not specify

Do we know if private citizens were allowed to own artillery at the time the amendment was written

I wonder

Pretty sure you were allowed to own pretty much anything you wanted. Probably not to many could afford them though. People bought things the could use, and used them as they were meant be used.


The answer is yes. Some owned cannon.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
06-08-2019 16:51
James___
★★★★☆
(1605)
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:
https://youtu.be/K2IOZ-5Nk5k


I didn't realize bump stocks pretty much made it a real machine gun. Crazy that shit was legal.

To quote the video's host "Anything can be turned into something bad" ha ha

I love that one.

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people" (usually with guns, even without guns you'd still have fist fights)

What I've noticed (maybe I'm wrong) is that almost all of the gun violence is with legal guns (they may not have been legally registered but the type/tech is legal).

You never see RPG attacks (where available they only run $2500 loaded), gatlin gun, or even fully automatic machine guns of any kind.

The bump stock in Vegas was a perfect example. It was a legal accessory.

Maybe legal guns are "good enough" so criminals don't want more.



With guns, easy to use. It's strange in a way but anymore the letter of the law trump's everything else.
06-08-2019 19:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9602)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
hand gun
long gun
machine gun
hand grenade
mortar
RPG
tank

As weapons are "serious" there should be some regulation. There are three valid and important reasons to have weapons:

- Recreation
- Self Defense against individuals
- Self Defense against your own government

So let's all go watch Red Dawn and come back with where we'd draw the line : )


The 2nd amendment does not specify a purpose for owning or bearing arms.

Neither do you. You don't get to 'draw the line'. Neither does the federal government (legally) nor any State government (legally). The States are bound to the 2nd amendment as well.

Why do you want to punish 80 million people for the crime of what 1 person has done?


But it's not the act of one person, it's getting to be several people every year. And, don't the lives of the hundreds, if not thousands of people directly effected by these individuals matter?

Why do you want to punish me for the crimes of an other?
HarveyH55 wrote:
The Constitution can be update, amended.

Why do you want to amend to the Constitution to punish me for the crimes of another?
HarveyH55 wrote:
Since the 2nd Amendment doesn't specify the weapon, why not full automatic? High explosives, landmines, hand grenades, mortars, rockets?

Why not? I have no problem with any of them.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Why aren't all the weapons our tax dollars buy for our military, available to the general public as well? They aren't mentioned in the 2nd Amendment either.

Why not? I have no problem with the public anyone any of it.
HarveyH55 wrote:
In Ohio, the police stated it took about 30 seconds to kill the shooter, from the first shots fired. He still killed 9 people, quite a few others wounded. It's not clear how many of the wounded were shot, fell, or trampled in the chaos. Hundreds got hurt, in a less physical way, but just as painful. The dead, aren't the only victims, and they all matter. 30 seconds is pretty quick response, still a lot of damage done.

Yup. But a lot less damage than if some good guy with a gun hadn't shot the bad guy with a gun.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Sure, we have rights, the Constitution says so.

The Constitution does not grant this right. It only prohibits the government from interfering with it.
HarveyH55 wrote:
But we also have a huge problem, and it's been getting worse.

Correct. The problem has a lot to do with psychoquacks prescribing mind altering drugs, social media, leaving the mentally ill on the streets, and the catch and release program currently in place for criminals in many cities.
HarveyH55 wrote:
We amend the constitution, to fix problems.

Why do you want to punish me for the crimes committed by another?
HarveyH55 wrote:
How many more people need to get killed, wounded, lose family and friends this way, before you consider it a problem requiring a solution? We have the right to bare arms, but we also have a right to modify the laws. This is one of those things that needs to be modernized. Our founding fathers didn't have these problems, nor would they have imagined it. Much different times.

Nothing is 'out of date'. Presentism fallacy. The right exist, independent of date, weapons available, state of society, etc.


The Parrot Killer
06-08-2019 19:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9602)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:So let's all go watch Red Dawn and come back with where we'd draw the line : )

It is bogus to assume that the government must somehow be drawing lines for us. We the People draw lines for the government, not the other way around.

I'll grant a need for the Federal government to draw some lines with respect to interstate commerce.


Yeah I said where would you draw the line. Do you think I should be allowed to legal acquire a gatlin gun?


There is no line. The 2nd amendment does not specify a weapon based on type action or brand name.


The Parrot Killer
06-08-2019 19:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9602)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The 2nd amendment does not specify


Do we know if private citizens were allowed to own artillery at the time the amendment was written

I wonder


Yes they were. They still are.


The Parrot Killer
06-08-2019 19:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9602)
HarveyH55 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The 2nd amendment does not specify


Do we know if private citizens were allowed to own artillery at the time the amendment was written

I wonder


Pretty sure you were allowed to own pretty much anything you wanted. Probably not to many could afford them though. People bought things the could use, and used them as they were meant be used.


Private ships were loaded with cannons to defend themselves from piracy.
Some private individuals would even buy them.


The Parrot Killer
06-08-2019 20:01
James___
★★★★☆
(1605)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:So let's all go watch Red Dawn and come back with where we'd draw the line : )

It is bogus to assume that the government must somehow be drawing lines for us. We the People draw lines for the government, not the other way around.

I'll grant a need for the Federal government to draw some lines with respect to interstate commerce.


Yeah I said where would you draw the line. Do you think I should be allowed to legal acquire a gatlin gun?



I wouldn't have a problem with you owning a Gatling gun. Considering how cumbersome they are, kind of doubt you could go and easily shoot up some place with one.
What people overlook is that semiautomatic rifles are legal because they are used by people for hunting. Ted Nugent https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fit99l6kHyA hunts with a bow. He laughs at people who use a 30.06 with a scope. Not sporting he says. Also with hunting game, you need to kill your prey with one shot. Accuracy does matter. If not then then injured prey will try leaving the store and when you catch your kill if you do, it's meat will have a sour taste to it because on adrenaline.
Then you need to hang your kill and cut away around it hooves to let the blood drain out. I guess what this all comes back to, do hunters need a semiautomatic weapon for hunting game?
If semiautomatic weapons were banned there would still be plenty of rifles available for hunters to use. And as demonstrated in the link I posted about the bump stock, have to reload the rifle after each shot would discourage such rampages.
And for me it's a special interest thing that makes no sense. For the purpose it's been legalized for, haven't heard of an actual hunter using one. Common sense went out the window on this.
06-08-2019 20:25
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4936)
tmiddles wrote:Yeah I said where would you draw the line. Do you think I should be allowed to legal acquire a gatlin gun?

I apologize, I missed this.

I take exception to the phrasing of your question. It is not the government's place to "allow" you to do stuff.

The answer to your question is that there should be no law prohibiting you from acquiring a Gatling gun. If you, as one of We the People, want to have a Gatling gun the you should be free to pursue happiness and the purchase of a Gatling gun.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
Edited on 06-08-2019 20:26
06-08-2019 21:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9602)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Yeah I said where would you draw the line. Do you think I should be allowed to legal acquire a gatlin gun?

I apologize, I missed this.

I take exception to the phrasing of your question. It is not the government's place to "allow" you to do stuff.

The answer to your question is that there should be no law prohibiting you from acquiring a Gatling gun. If you, as one of We the People, want to have a Gatling gun the you should be free to pursue happiness and the purchase of a Gatling gun.


Indeed, a member of a local gun club here acquired a M1903-'06 Gatling gun and restored it to working condition. He did a beautiful job on it. That gun was built in 1905.


The Parrot Killer
06-08-2019 21:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9602)
James___ wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:So let's all go watch Red Dawn and come back with where we'd draw the line : )

It is bogus to assume that the government must somehow be drawing lines for us. We the People draw lines for the government, not the other way around.

I'll grant a need for the Federal government to draw some lines with respect to interstate commerce.


Yeah I said where would you draw the line. Do you think I should be allowed to legal acquire a gatlin gun?



I wouldn't have a problem with you owning a Gatling gun. Considering how cumbersome they are, kind of doubt you could go and easily shoot up some place with one.
What people overlook is that semiautomatic rifles are legal because they are used by people for hunting. Ted Nugent https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fit99l6kHyA hunts with a bow. He laughs at people who use a 30.06 with a scope. Not sporting he says. Also with hunting game, you need to kill your prey with one shot. Accuracy does matter. If not then then injured prey will try leaving the store and when you catch your kill if you do, it's meat will have a sour taste to it because on adrenaline.
Then you need to hang your kill and cut away around it hooves to let the blood drain out. I guess what this all comes back to, do hunters need a semiautomatic weapon for hunting game?
If semiautomatic weapons were banned there would still be plenty of rifles available for hunters to use. And as demonstrated in the link I posted about the bump stock, have to reload the rifle after each shot would discourage such rampages.
And for me it's a special interest thing that makes no sense. For the purpose it's been legalized for, haven't heard of an actual hunter using one. Common sense went out the window on this.


YOU don't get to dictate what a gun is used for or why someone might want one. YOU don't get to dictate that people need to justify the purchase of any gun.

The 2nd amendment does not specify a gun by type or action. It does not specify any particular weapon at all. The government is simply prohibited from messing with it.

The bumpstock ban is unconstitutional. Indeed, it's completely impractical. You can bump your weapon off a fat gut or easily make a bump stock.

I can buy a gun to collect it as a piece of nostalgia. I can buy it and appreciate it purely as a piece of art. I can buy it and simply shoot it for fun. I can buy it and take it hunting. I can buy it and use it to remove pests such as wolves, bears, rabbits, deer, etc. I can buy it to shoot down an avalanche to make the area below it safer. I can buy it (or make it) to shoot shells into the air such as fireworks. I can use it as a signaling device. I can buy it and mount it on my ship to deter pirates. I can buy it and use it in my home or business to deter or stop robbers, rapists, or others that would do me or my family or my business harm. I can buy a gun and use it to stop a rogue government from acquiring too much power. I can use it to study physics. I can use it to protect people or property (one of the ways I use mine, since I am part of the security at our airport, as most mechanics are).

Semi-automatic weapons have their place and their purpose. YOU don't get to decide what that is.

Fully automatic weapons have their place and their purpose. YOU don't get to decide what that is.

An explosive device has it's place and purpose. YOU don't get to decide what that is.

The 2nd amendment does not specify any weapon by type, by action, by brand, or require anyone to justify it for any purpose. It simply prohibits government from messing with it.

The 2nd amendment discusses two rights, and does not grant either one. The rights are inherent. Both rights discussed are related.

The right of a State to self defense. This is done by organizing militias. It is the right of any State and allows it to exist as a free State. This is NOT the National Guard, a federal militia. Most States have militias. Washington currently has 75 people in it (administrative personnel, kept on to activate a fighting force if necessary).

The right of the individual to self defense. This is done by arming the individual. An individual is allowed to defend himself by any means available. That means quite possibly a fully automatic weapon, a semi-automatic weapon, a revolver, a bolt action rifle, a shotgun, a gun with a bumpstock, an explosive device, a sword, a bow and arrow, a crossbow, an AR-15, an M16, a tank, a bazooka, anything. I do mean anything.

Scary? No. There are far more good guys with these weapons than bad guys with these weapons.

Guns made this country free. Guns are what keep this country free. Yes, that means the best guns available.


The Parrot Killer
06-08-2019 23:03
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4936)
HarveyH55 wrote: No, I don't believe the general population needs military, or military-style weapons.

At the same time, you don't believe that you dictate the needs of the general population, correct?

HarveyH55 wrote: Personally, I think we would be better of with fewer of the semi-automatic weapons, easily purchased anywhere.

Whose do you think should be removed first? Mine?

HarveyH55 wrote: I'd like to see more people, open carry, as a deterrent.

To that end, would you have them only able to carry lame-looking items that don't amount to any sort of deterrent except to render someone incapacitated from extreme laughter, or would you have them carry the scariest, bad-ass-looking pieces of hardware that would deter the chit out of any gang in Chicago?

Hmm?

HarveyH55 wrote: Besides, those carrying openly, are primary targets, everybody else can only run and hide, not shoot back. You proudly support your right to bear arms, and proudly carry, you should have the testicles to use it, when needed.

So let's let them ... and encourage them to do so.

HarveyH55 wrote: I think video games play a big role in these mass shootings,

Which mass shootings were perpetrated by someone acting out a video game?

Personally I think all the mass shootings were the direct result minds tortured by having been exposed to Barney the purple dinosaur. HIT Entertainment is guilty of depraved indifference and should have forseen the inevitable consequences of what they were producing.

What do video games have to do with this anyway?

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
07-08-2019 02:28
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1378)
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
hand gun
long gun
machine gun
hand grenade
mortar
RPG
tank

As weapons are "serious" there should be some regulation. There are three valid and important reasons to have weapons:

- Recreation
- Self Defense against individuals
- Self Defense against your own government

So let's all go watch Red Dawn and come back with where we'd draw the line : )


The 2nd amendment does not specify a purpose for owning or bearing arms.

Neither do you. You don't get to 'draw the line'. Neither does the federal government (legally) nor any State government (legally). The States are bound to the 2nd amendment as well.

Why do you want to punish 80 million people for the crime of what 1 person has done?


But it's not the act of one person, it's getting to be several people every year. And, don't the lives of the hundreds, if not thousands of people directly effected by these individuals matter?

Why do you want to punish me for the crimes of an other?
HarveyH55 wrote:
The Constitution can be update, amended.

Why do you want to amend to the Constitution to punish me for the crimes of another?
HarveyH55 wrote:
Since the 2nd Amendment doesn't specify the weapon, why not full automatic? High explosives, landmines, hand grenades, mortars, rockets?

Why not? I have no problem with any of them.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Why aren't all the weapons our tax dollars buy for our military, available to the general public as well? They aren't mentioned in the 2nd Amendment either.

Why not? I have no problem with the public anyone any of it.
HarveyH55 wrote:
In Ohio, the police stated it took about 30 seconds to kill the shooter, from the first shots fired. He still killed 9 people, quite a few others wounded. It's not clear how many of the wounded were shot, fell, or trampled in the chaos. Hundreds got hurt, in a less physical way, but just as painful. The dead, aren't the only victims, and they all matter. 30 seconds is pretty quick response, still a lot of damage done.

Yup. But a lot less damage than if some good guy with a gun hadn't shot the bad guy with a gun.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Sure, we have rights, the Constitution says so.

The Constitution does not grant this right. It only prohibits the government from interfering with it.
HarveyH55 wrote:
But we also have a huge problem, and it's been getting worse.

Correct. The problem has a lot to do with psychoquacks prescribing mind altering drugs, social media, leaving the mentally ill on the streets, and the catch and release program currently in place for criminals in many cities.
HarveyH55 wrote:
We amend the constitution, to fix problems.

Why do you want to punish me for the crimes committed by another?
HarveyH55 wrote:
How many more people need to get killed, wounded, lose family and friends this way, before you consider it a problem requiring a solution? We have the right to bare arms, but we also have a right to modify the laws. This is one of those things that needs to be modernized. Our founding fathers didn't have these problems, nor would they have imagined it. Much different times.

Nothing is 'out of date'. Presentism fallacy. The right exist, independent of date, weapons available, state of society, etc.


Well, you should know by now, I don't play the debate games, so I'll ignore the silly argument parts, as usual. You've been trained a certain way, can't respond any other way. There are over 300 million other people living in this country, besides you, and quite a few are getting killed, wounded, or harmed, by individuals (plural), who are enjoying the same rights as you, just in a very bad way.

North Korea, Iran, few other countries, aren't bound by our constitution, our laws, but we, and much of the world, doesn't want them to have nuclear missiles, though they want them really bad. Lot of countries have nuclear weapons, and fortunately only one has used them, and we haven't done it since. Once those countries get nuclear weapons, I doubt they are going to be anymore likely to use them, as the rest of the world, since their first use, would likely end their existence pretty quick, and they'd know it. Nothing to gain by using them, but having them would get them on board, to play with the big boys.

There are all kinds of weapons available, better controls, and fewer of some specific ones, would be a step in the right direction.

Why do you want to punish me for the crimes committed by another?


Sort of a childish argument, selfish as well. Why do you need a weapon so badly, commonly used in these crimes? Plenty of other choices, too complicated to operate? To heavy for you to carry? Maybe you don't have time to practice, and improve your skills, just too lazy? Maybe you wish to reserve the option on going on a rampage yourself someday.

I heard on the car radio some interesting things, haven't check accuracy, but they usually are fairly accurate with their facts on everything else.

Clinton had 15 mass shootings
GW Bush had 15
Obama had 37
Trump had 14, so far...

Reagan's ban on assault rifle sales expired in 2004. I don't know where sales and production really took off, manufacturers would have know if the ban would have been extended. The initial high demand, would have kept the price a little high, maybe a little too high for nutjobs to get a hold of them easy. The radio show was addressing whether or not Trump is to blame for the more recent shootings. Guess we'll see if Trump can do better than Obama, in his second term (pretty much assured, but he still needs to get people out to vote).

Other than the obvious mental issues, the other obvious common factor, is semi-automatic assault-style rifles. The human issue is really hard to detect and control, the hardware isn't. Just because someone passes a criminal background check, doesn't mean they never committed crimes, or won't, just means they never got caught. Same with mental health, no reported history, doesn't mean an individual is stable and healthy, just that they haven't had anything recorded. Many of these mass shooters are young, haven't had much time to create a history, their juvenile records don't generally carry over to adulthood. Most of them legally purchase their weapons of choice, shortly before misusing them.

What's best for you, or the population in general? Unless you and your family lock yourselves in your home, safe, and well armed, you are part of the population. Your wife shops, kids go to school, you dine out, maybe go to club, movie theaters. You have to leave your semi-automatic assault rifles at home, permits to carry, only cover handguns. Even some types of business don't allow you to bring those in either. Alcohol and guns don't mix real well...

People own exotic pets, some are dangerous and deadly. Lot of rules and regulations, fortunately few escape, and few get the operatunity to kill, for long. A year or two ago, Florida man's King Cobra escaped, and was on the run for about a month, before found. We've had tigers an lions escape as well, fortunately those turned out well, maybe not so much for the animals. Some exotic pets get out in the wild around here, and are able to breed and populate. Always that treat, and it would be a much bigger problem, if anyone could buy and own dangerous, and deadly species.

Same goes with weapons, some are relatively harmless, if owned and used responsibly, others are very dangerous and deadly, and need more consideration and control. There will probably always be mass killing, just doesn't make a lot of sense to make it so easy.
07-08-2019 04:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9602)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
hand gun
long gun
machine gun
hand grenade
mortar
RPG
tank

As weapons are "serious" there should be some regulation. There are three valid and important reasons to have weapons:

- Recreation
- Self Defense against individuals
- Self Defense against your own government

So let's all go watch Red Dawn and come back with where we'd draw the line : )


The 2nd amendment does not specify a purpose for owning or bearing arms.

Neither do you. You don't get to 'draw the line'. Neither does the federal government (legally) nor any State government (legally). The States are bound to the 2nd amendment as well.

Why do you want to punish 80 million people for the crime of what 1 person has done?


But it's not the act of one person, it's getting to be several people every year. And, don't the lives of the hundreds, if not thousands of people directly effected by these individuals matter?

Why do you want to punish me for the crimes of an other?
HarveyH55 wrote:
The Constitution can be update, amended.

Why do you want to amend to the Constitution to punish me for the crimes of another?
HarveyH55 wrote:
Since the 2nd Amendment doesn't specify the weapon, why not full automatic? High explosives, landmines, hand grenades, mortars, rockets?

Why not? I have no problem with any of them.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Why aren't all the weapons our tax dollars buy for our military, available to the general public as well? They aren't mentioned in the 2nd Amendment either.

Why not? I have no problem with the public anyone any of it.
HarveyH55 wrote:
In Ohio, the police stated it took about 30 seconds to kill the shooter, from the first shots fired. He still killed 9 people, quite a few others wounded. It's not clear how many of the wounded were shot, fell, or trampled in the chaos. Hundreds got hurt, in a less physical way, but just as painful. The dead, aren't the only victims, and they all matter. 30 seconds is pretty quick response, still a lot of damage done.

Yup. But a lot less damage than if some good guy with a gun hadn't shot the bad guy with a gun.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Sure, we have rights, the Constitution says so.

The Constitution does not grant this right. It only prohibits the government from interfering with it.
HarveyH55 wrote:
But we also have a huge problem, and it's been getting worse.

Correct. The problem has a lot to do with psychoquacks prescribing mind altering drugs, social media, leaving the mentally ill on the streets, and the catch and release program currently in place for criminals in many cities.
HarveyH55 wrote:
We amend the constitution, to fix problems.

Why do you want to punish me for the crimes committed by another?
HarveyH55 wrote:
How many more people need to get killed, wounded, lose family and friends this way, before you consider it a problem requiring a solution? We have the right to bare arms, but we also have a right to modify the laws. This is one of those things that needs to be modernized. Our founding fathers didn't have these problems, nor would they have imagined it. Much different times.

Nothing is 'out of date'. Presentism fallacy. The right exist, independent of date, weapons available, state of society, etc.


Well, you should know by now, I don't play the debate games, so I'll ignore the silly argument parts, as usual. You've been trained a certain way, can't respond any other way. There are over 300 million other people living in this country, besides you, and quite a few are getting killed, wounded, or harmed, by individuals (plural), who are enjoying the same rights as you, just in a very bad way.

So you advocate punishing me because of what some clown did in El Paso or Dayton, right? You want to take my gun away because of what some clown did in El Paso or Dayton, right?
HarveyH55 wrote:
North Korea, Iran, few other countries, aren't bound by our constitution, our laws, but we, and much of the world, doesn't want them to have nuclear missiles, though they want them really bad.

We don't get a say in it. If they want nukes bad enough, they will get them.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Lot of countries have nuclear weapons, and fortunately only one has used them, and we haven't done it since.

And this scares the crap out of others that own nukes.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Once those countries get nuclear weapons, I doubt they are going to be anymore likely to use them, as the rest of the world, since their first use, would likely end their existence pretty quick, and they'd know it. Nothing to gain by using them, but having them would get them on board, to play with the big boys.

Because the United States is the only nation demonstrate to be willing to use nukes, and we have made it very clear we have no problem with using them again.
HarveyH55 wrote:
There are all kinds of weapons available, better controls, and fewer of some specific ones, would be a step in the right direction.

No, it wouldn't. It is a step away from the Constitution, and toward a dictatorship or oligarchy determining what weapon I'm allowed to have, based on what somebody I've never met does in El Paso or Dayton.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Why do you want to punish me for the crimes committed by another?


Sort of a childish argument, selfish as well.

WRONG. Casting this off as 'childish' is ignoring the basic point of the argument.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Why do you need a weapon so badly, commonly used in these crimes?

Why do you want to take my weapon, which was never used in any crime, because another one was used in a crime? Shall I take your house because another one was used in a crime? Shall I take your car because one of the same model was used in a crime?
HarveyH55 wrote:
Plenty of other choices, too complicated to operate?

Who are you to decide what choices I should have? And on what basis? Because of what someone I don't even know has done?
HarveyH55 wrote:
Maybe you wish to reserve the option on going on a rampage yourself someday.

Maybe you wish to reserve the option on running over people with your car someday. We should take it away from you!

Who are you to decide what I might do with my gun? The only logical conclusion is that you think I'm going to go shoot innocent people with my gun, simply because it is the same model as what someone used to do that.
HarveyH55 wrote:
I heard on the car radio some interesting things, haven't check accuracy, but they usually are fairly accurate with their facts on everything else.

Clinton had 15 mass shootings
GW Bush had 15
Obama had 37
Trump had 14, so far...

I have to admit, Obama wound up causing more gun sales than any other President. Some of these people went nucking futs.

But you want to take my guns from me for it. What did I do? Why are you blaming me?
HarveyH55 wrote:
Reagan's ban on assault rifle sales expired in 2004.

He had no authority to ban anything.
HarveyH55 wrote:
I don't know where sales and production really took off, manufacturers would have know if the ban would have been extended. The initial high demand, would have kept the price a little high, maybe a little too high for nutjobs to get a hold of them easy. The radio show was addressing whether or not Trump is to blame for the more recent shootings. Guess we'll see if Trump can do better than Obama, in his second term (pretty much assured, but he still needs to get people out to vote).

As far as I know, Trump was not in El Paso nor Dayton at the time. I don't think he shot anyone there.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Other than the obvious mental issues, the other obvious common factor, is semi-automatic assault-style rifles.

Simply because they are a reliable action on a gun, they are compact and light, and require less trigger pressure, improving accuracy. I've shot revolvers, but they have a heavy trigger pressure and are bulkier. They do have the advantage of a simple firing mechanism and that they don't eject spent cartridges just anywhere.

Both revolvers and semiautomatic pistols will fire at the same rate.

There is no such thing as a semiautomatic assault rifle. All assault rifles are machine guns.

I only use long guns when hunting or when removing pests from my property. They are rather awkward for most any other purpose.

HarveyH55 wrote:
The human issue is really hard to detect and control,

It's easy. The guy was a known mental case.
HarveyH55 wrote:
the hardware isn't.

Not so fast there, buck! Guns can be hidden.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Just because someone passes a criminal background check, doesn't mean they never committed crimes, or won't, just means they never got caught.

Background checks for guns are ineffective and unconstitutional. Thank you for agreeing with me on that.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Same with mental health, no reported history, doesn't mean an individual is stable and healthy, just that they haven't had anything recorded. Many of these mass shooters are young, haven't had much time to create a history, their juvenile records don't generally carry over to adulthood.

It was recorded. Many of them have been receiving treatment by various psychoquacks.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Most of them legally purchase their weapons of choice, shortly before misusing them.

The shooter in Marysville stole the gun. The shooter in Clackamas stole the weapon. Other mass shooters purchase the weapon. Drug dealers will often sell weapons to anyone, no check needed.

An empty argument, dude.
HarveyH55 wrote:
What's best for you, or the population in general?

Both. It is the same. You are building a false dichotomy.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Unless you and your family lock yourselves in your home, safe, and well armed, you are part of the population.

Indeed I am. I will protect it too.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Your wife shops, kids go to school, you dine out, maybe go to club, movie theaters.

My kids are beyond school age, but yes. A mass shooting can break out anywhere. Are you saying I am not allowed to have an answer for it?
HarveyH55 wrote:
You have to leave your semi-automatic assault rifles at home, permits to carry, only cover handguns.

There is no such thing as a semiautomatic assault rifle. Yes, I can take them if I have them.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Even some types of business don't allow you to bring those in either.

Such businesses run the risk of a mass murderer showing up and having nothing to stop them. That's what happened at a Walmart recently. Walmart is a business imposed 'gun free zone'. The shooter knew that. Now you want to create MORE of them???
HarveyH55 wrote:
Alcohol and guns don't mix real well...

Actually they do. Sometimes with unfortunate results. Someone can easily shoot themselves or one of their friends. They are just as responsible as getting into a car drunk and killing someone. At least people are lousy shots when they are drunk. The bartender doesn't have to be.
HarveyH55 wrote:
People own exotic pets, some are dangerous and deadly. Lot of rules and regulations, fortunately few escape, and few get the operatunity to kill, for long. A year or two ago, Florida man's King Cobra escaped, and was on the run for about a month, before found. We've had tigers an lions escape as well, fortunately those turned out well, maybe not so much for the animals. Some exotic pets get out in the wild around here, and are able to breed and populate. Always that treat, and it would be a much bigger problem, if anyone could buy and own dangerous, and deadly species.

They are responsible for any damages by having such a pet, just as I am responsible for any damages from firing my gun.
HarveyH55 wrote:
some are relatively harmless,

Who are you to decide what is 'harmless'??? Are YOU an expert on guns, their calibers, their potential damage from each type of action or caliber? What is 'harmful'? Stopping someone willing to rape my wife?
HarveyH55 wrote:
if owned and used responsibly,

Hey. What a concept! It doesn't matter what kind of gun either! Use them responsibly, just like cars, just like a sword, just like a pair of shoes!
HarveyH55 wrote:
others are very dangerous and deadly, and need more consideration and control.

Can you possibly be a bit more vague about this? Who are YOU to decide what is 'very dangerous and deadly'?
HarveyH55 wrote:
There will probably always be mass killing, just doesn't make a lot of sense to make it so easy.


Fine. I agree.
* remove 'gun free zones' It just makes it easier for a mass murderer.
* encourage people to carry guns. The fewer people are armed, the easier it is for the mass murderer.
* allow any weapon. The wimpier the gun, the easier it is for the mass murderer that doesn't care about any stupid limits.
* get mental cases into treatment and keep them there as long as necessary. The less care they receive, the easier it is for the mass murderer.


*


The Parrot Killer
07-08-2019 21:37
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1378)
If you want or need assault rifles, then you should feel 'punished', if you need to fill out a little more paper work, a few more steps in the ownership process, beyond what you need for a handgun. Unless you have some dirty little secret of the past, you shouldn't anything to be afraid of, and keep your prized killing machine. I'm talking about taking away anyone's property, never did. Not sure where you pulled that from. Just make it a lot more difficult to own them. The boys will find other fun toys, if they don't think it's worth the extra hassle.

I'm really not wanting to see armed guards positioned everywhere, and not exactly ideal protection either. A shot would usually need to be fired, before they know there is a shooter, least one innocent bystander is likely to be killed or wounded. One victim is still too many. Arming a larger portion of the population, has the same problem, maybe a little worse. You hear the first shot, do you shoot the first person you see with a gun in hand? Will somebody else see you with your weapon, and mistake you for the shooter? Having a gun is one thing, being able to hit your target takes practice, often. Acquiring the skills to identify the correct target takes some training. I really don't want armed guards every where, what every move, even in a public restroom. Can you image standing at a urinal, and having man with gun watching, to make sure your only pulling you 'water gun' out of your pants. It was rough going, last time I had to pee in a cup, they watch from a distance though.

I don't know what solution will work best, but I do know this problem isn't going away, dozens of people murdered, and seriously injured, for being in the wrong place, at the wrong time. I don't how anyone can not see any value in people they never met. Complete strangers are just as valuable as anyone else to. Just really bothers me the are so easily dismissed, 'didn't know any of them, why care' attitude just seems sick to me.
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate Recent Mass Shootings (since 2016):

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Mass Transit506-10-2019 09:45
Does mass media convince people?1818-06-2019 05:53
Maine Becomes The Most Recent Blue State To Reject A Carbon Tax314-03-2019 03:34
Mass Sacrifice Of Children And Llamas In Ancient Peru Reflects Trauma Over Climate Change107-03-2019 18:28
It looks like sun spots decrease did cause the most recent little ice age326-02-2019 00:34
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact