Page 38 of 51 FirstFirst ... 282930313233343536373839404142434445464748 ... LastLast
Results 741 to 760 of 1002

Thread: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

  1. #741
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Mass.
    Posts
    4,543
    Quote Originally Posted by BassAle View Post
    how many people got killed by lawn darts? Those things are banned.
    It drives me crazy the founders didnít include lawn darts in the constitution. I canít believe how shortsighted they were.

  2. #742

    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Living from my car
    Posts
    22,166
    Quote Originally Posted by St. Clown View Post
    I want my Jarts! Jerks.
    Some assembly of "replacement parts" required.

  3. #743
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Back down in Uptown
    Posts
    12,862

    Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

    Quote Originally Posted by SJHovey View Post
    That's what I keep saying about all of these proposals are "do something, accomplish nothing" proposals. Yet you guys would parade around and brag about all that has been accomplished.

    Gun deaths in this country aren't the result of some guy blazing away with a Tommy gun filled with a hundred rounds. The gun deaths you hear about, that you see stories about on tv for a week after they occur, are. But those are a tiny, tiny fraction of gun homicides.

    99% of the gun homicides in this country are just caused by a someone shooting one or two shots at another person with a shotgun or a handgun or a deer rifle, and not a result of the Las Vegas type shooting. A guy shoots his wife and kid. Someone shoots another guy in the street.
    You infer that you do you want solutions to reduce gun deaths. Why don't we ban handguns? That's a 'do something, accomplish something' proposal.

    Handguns were used in 19 times as many murders as rifles in 2016, according to the Uniform Crime Reporting data.

    https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/02/...with-handguns/
    Go Gophers!

  4. #744
    NPC ScoobyDoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The 9th Circle
    Posts
    69,850

    Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

    Quote Originally Posted by Drew S. View Post
    It drives me crazy the founders didnít include lawn darts in the constitution. I canít believe how shortsighted they were.
    Drives me ****ing crazy that they included grenades and I can't buy a ****ing one? What the ****?
    Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
    Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

    Glass at 0%: No Heart

  5. #745
    Made in the USA
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    46,053

    Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

    Quote Originally Posted by 5mn_Major View Post
    You infer that you do you want solutions to reduce gun deaths. Why don't we ban handguns? That's a 'do something, accomplish something' proposal.

    Handguns were used in 19 times as many murders as rifles in 2016, according to the Uniform Crime Reporting data.

    https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/02/...with-handguns/
    Been working REAL well in places like Chicago, where they are banned. Or how about we take Sadiq Khan's approach in London, once an attack happens with something, we ban that. We're up to firearms, knives, and now cars. Maybe osmeone will use a hairspray can to create a makeshift grenade, and that can get banned next. Or maybe like that one scene in Under Siege 2 where Seagal's character fabricates an explosive, and we can ban all those ingredients.

    What are the motivations behind all of these things happening, and what sort of chemical or biological inducer would result in an amplification of these sorts of motivations?
    It was an honor to present your colors, RPI. Let's Go 'TUTE!
    May 14th, 2011, 11:00 PM ET: 2147483647

    "Better to be infamous than never famous at all." -Roger Stone

    Quote Originally Posted by French Rage View Post
    Ahh crap I agree exactly with what FlagDude said.
    Quote Originally Posted by Handyman View Post
    And yet, even if Flaggy is complete tinfoil hat, every day it looks closer and closer to the truth.
    Quote Originally Posted by burd View Post
    So flaggy: you win.

  6. #746
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Mass.
    Posts
    4,543
    Quote Originally Posted by ScoobyDoo View Post
    Drives me ****ing crazy that they included grenades and I can't buy a ****ing one? What the ****?
    You need to become part of the deep state and then you can purchase all you want.

  7. #747
    NPC ScoobyDoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The 9th Circle
    Posts
    69,850

    Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

    Quote Originally Posted by Drew S. View Post
    You need to become part of the deep state and then you can purchase all you want.
    Who says I'm not? Define Deep State. Cause with the President's definition just about everyone outside of his basket of deplorables is a deep stater.
    Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
    Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

    Glass at 0%: No Heart

  8. #748

    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Living from my car
    Posts
    22,166
    Quote Originally Posted by FlagDUDE08 View Post
    ...Or how about we take Sadiq Khan's approach in London, once an attack happens with something, we ban that. We're up to ... cars. ...
    Do you not understand how pollution elimination and congestion charging for driving in London during the "ban" works?

    I have long given you much more benefit of the doubt on this board than many others, but you are swiftly approaching a bridge too far as of late.

  9. #749
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,089

    Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

    Quote Originally Posted by SJHovey View Post

    No. You propose that your suggestions will reduce the severity of the "mass shootings." That might be true. I won't concede the point because I think Charles Whitman used a bolt action rifle to kill 18 people. I still think people who want to commit mass homicide are going to be able to do it even with the guns you're restricting them to.
    Even by your own admission 18 is a lot less than 50-60 killed (whatever the total in Vegas ended up being) and 100's wounded. So why exactly are you against these common sense proposals again?

  10. #750
    NPC ScoobyDoo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    The 9th Circle
    Posts
    69,850

    Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

    Quote Originally Posted by trixR4kids View Post
    Even by your own admission 18 is a lot less than 50-60 killed (whatever the total in Vegas ended up being) and 100's wounded. So why exactly are you against these common sense proposals again?
    It's in the Constitution.
    Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
    Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

    Glass at 0%: No Heart

  11. #751
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Back down in Uptown
    Posts
    12,862

    Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

    Quote Originally Posted by FlagDUDE08 View Post
    Been working REAL well in places like Chicago, where they are banned. Or how about we take Sadiq Khan's approach in London, once an attack happens with something, we ban that.
    Chicago was forced to retract the handgun ban in 2008. A 2015 study of guns in Chicago found that more than 60 percent of new guns used in Chicago gang-related crimes between 2009 and 2013 were bought in other states - basically all states with more lax gun laws than Chicago. And even then, there are two dozen cities that are more dangerous per capita than Chicago. https://bismarcktribune.com/news/nat...c065352.html#8

    And London with no legal handguns has a crime rate less than St. Louis MO with 20-some times the population.

    Do we support a handgun ban yet?
    Go Gophers!

  12. #752
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,089

    Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

    Also it's hilarious that you only count deaths in your little score of how many people would've benefited from these proposals when 100's get maimed for life and have limbs amputated or have huge medical costs some of which may or may not even be covered by their insurance (in which case if they can't afford the taxpayer picks up the bill).

    Not that the numbers should really even matter, we have common sense laws in place for all sorts of things that people don't commonly die from because it betters society.

  13. #753
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 1999
    Posts
    6,808

    Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

    Quote Originally Posted by 5mn_Major View Post
    You infer that you do you want solutions to reduce gun deaths. Why don't we ban handguns? That's a 'do something, accomplish something' proposal.

    Handguns were used in 19 times as many murders as rifles in 2016, according to the Uniform Crime Reporting data.

    https://www.dailysignal.com/2018/02/...with-handguns/
    You suggest that I'm looking for solutions to gun deaths. Honestly, it's not a real big priority for me, because notwithstanding the incredible and outsized news coverage afforded these events, death by gun homicide in this country is still relatively uncommon. If you want to do something, spend all your time and money on research to do something about heart disease or cancer. Those things each kill 50 times more people in this country than someone shooting you with a gun.

    My position is this. Yes, if you want to stop or significantly reduce gun homicides in this country, you need to do exactly what you propose. You need to ban handguns. You probably need to ban guns in general. Removing guns from the hands of the public is the only way you can get to the gun death levels that you all want, like in Denmark or Switzerland or other countries.

    The problem is, in this country, those of you who propose gun reform never propose that, at least not outside the confines of places like this. Legislation isn't introduced banning private ownership of handguns, or guns in general. Or, if it's proposed, the political will to pass it isn't there. And even if in a very localized area the political will exists, you still have to get around the 2nd Amendment.

    Most people are like me. They agree that it's tragic when someone gets shot and killed. They agree it's horrifying when someone goes into a nightclub and shoots 10 people. But the political will is not there to do away with the Second Amendment and ban private gun ownership. You know that and I know that. Until you change that, all of this discussion is just so much hot air.
    That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

  14. #754
    Just a boring user.
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Walking to Yost
    Posts
    9,797

    Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

    Quote Originally Posted by SJHovey View Post
    Your proposal regarding a fire rate slower than finger speed is basically banning semi-automatic weapons, I guess. I don't think you'll ever get that accomplished, and even if you did you wouldn't accomplish anything. I can fire a pump action shotgun about as quickly as you can fire a semi-auto shotgun. The recoil from the weapon always causes a momentary pause during which the lever action or pump action or some other action can be operated.

    But let's say you got rid of semi-automatic weapons and magazines greater than 5 cartridges. Have you really accomplished anything?

    No. You propose that your suggestions will reduce the severity of the "mass shootings." That might be true. I won't concede the point because I think Charles Whitman used a bolt action rifle to kill 18 people. I still think people who want to commit mass homicide are going to be able to do it even with the guns you're restricting them to.

    But let's assume you are correct and the "severity" of "mass shootings" is reduced by your changes. What we are really talking about is maybe a handful of events, tops, each year, accounting for what, maybe 100 of the 12,000 annual gun homicides in this country each year?

    That's what I keep saying about all of these proposals are "do something, accomplish nothing" proposals. Yet you guys would parade around and brag about all that has been accomplished.

    Gun deaths in this country aren't the result of some guy blazing away with a Tommy gun filled with a hundred rounds. The gun deaths you hear about, that you see stories about on tv for a week after they occur, are. But those are a tiny, tiny fraction of gun homicides.

    99% of the gun homicides in this country are just caused by a someone shooting one or two shots at another person with a shotgun or a handgun or a deer rifle, and not a result of the Las Vegas type shooting. A guy shoots his wife and kid. Someone shoots another guy in the street.
    I'm not sure why you are so sure that reducing the amount rounds that a mass shooter can get off is not an improvement. The fact that there was a sharpshooter that managed to get 18 is not part of the equation right now- the mass shootings we see are with semi-auto weapons that can get off a large number of rounds quickly. That's fact. Lower the number of rounds gotten off and that improves the amount of harm they are capable of doing. How in the world is that not progress?? To say that it's not dismisses everyone who was randomly killed by mass shooter.

    And it's constantly hilarious that if a solution does not help the many single shot murders, that it should be even tried. My god, how are we ever going to make progress.

    Here's the thing- there's a decent amount of people who are very tired of gun deaths, and the amount of people who are that way grow every mass shootings. If that grows enough, there WILL be enough people who will repeal the 2nd amendment- given how pointless it is to have "a well regulated militia".

    So do you want to address the harm that is being done, or just wait until there are enough people to actually vote for a repeal of the 2nd?

    Do you not get that?

    Take the mass gun deaths out of the public eye (which is exactly where they go), and people will stop making a big deal about the 2nd and how it harms kids so much. This isn't rocket science.

  15. #755
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,089

    Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

    Yeah because nobody is doing any cancer/heart disease research and no advancements have been made there over the years.

    Again how many deaths/wounded/medical bills are necessary before we're allowed to implement common sense laws to prevent them? Especially something that could be easily solved and is clearly working far better in every other comparable country? Are we really going to pretend that our gun laws are better than those countries?

    Quote Originally Posted by alfablue
    Here's the thing- there's a decent amount of people who are very tired of gun deaths, and the amount of people who are that way grow every mass shootings. If that grows enough, there WILL be enough people who will repeal the 2nd amendment- given how pointless it is to have "a well regulated militia".
    The political will is there, it's just that it's mostly concentrated in areas where people actually want to live and not in backwards herp a derp states that get as much power in the senate.
    Last edited by trixR4kids; 09-06-2018 at 12:52 PM.

  16. #756
    Just a boring user.
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Walking to Yost
    Posts
    9,797

    Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

    Quote Originally Posted by SJHovey View Post
    Most people are like me. They agree that it's tragic when someone gets shot and killed. They agree it's horrifying when someone goes into a nightclub and shoots 10 people. But the political will is not there to do away with the Second Amendment and ban private gun ownership. You know that and I know that. Until you change that, all of this discussion is just so much hot air.
    I would not say most. I would point out that the growth of "repeal the 2nd" is getting to the point that you should be concerned.

    Gun deaths are much higher here than any other country. People are tired of that.

    And the "need" for a well regulated militia ended 200 years ago. There's no chance in he!! that some local "militia" group can fight off even the local police. So the idea that people will use guns to overthrow the government they don't like is never going to happen.

    Unless you can somehow come up with a logical reason why there should be absolute gun freedom that would actually be applicable.

  17. #757
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    3,089

    Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

    Quote Originally Posted by alfablue View Post
    And the "need" for a well regulated militia ended 200 years ago. There's no chance in he!! that some local "militia" group can fight off even the local police. So the idea that people will use guns to overthrow the government they don't like is never going to happen.
    Our local militias can't even bring themselves not to suck on a dildo after Sascha Baron Cohen tells them it'll help fight terrorism.

    And I'd also like to know why gun nuts think our current gun laws are better than every other comparable country that has significantly less gun deaths per capita.

  18. #758
    Lucia Apologist
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    26,395

    Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

    Quote Originally Posted by aparch View Post
    but you are swiftly approaching a bridge too far as of late.
    No offense, but this is the dumbest thing I have read on USCHO in a while.

    He's been a deplorable since he said Sandy Hook was fake. He immediately went on block.
    Code:
    As of 9/21/10:         As of 9/13/10:
    College Hockey 6       College Football 0
    BTHC 4                 WCHA FC:  1
    Quote Originally Posted by SanTropez View Post
    May your paint thinner run dry and the fleas of a thousand camels infest your dead deer.
    Quote Originally Posted by bigblue_dl View Post
    I don't even know how to classify magic vagina smoke babies..
    Quote Originally Posted by Kepler View Post
    When the giraffes start building radio telescopes they can join too.
    He's probably going to be a superstar but that man has more baggage than North West.

  19. #759
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Back down in Uptown
    Posts
    12,862

    Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

    Quote Originally Posted by SJHovey View Post
    You suggest that I'm looking for solutions to gun deaths. Honestly, it's not a real big priority for me, because notwithstanding the incredible and outsized news coverage afforded these events, death by gun homicide in this country is still relatively uncommon. If you want to do something, spend all your time and money on research to do something about heart disease or cancer. Those things each kill 50 times more people in this country than someone shooting you with a gun.
    That makes things clearer. It appears that you are looking at you while I'm looking at everyone else. Not sure how that sounds...but it appears true. But that's part of what I'm here for...

    Quote Originally Posted by SJHovey View Post
    My position is this. Yes, if you want to stop or significantly reduce gun homicides in this country, you need to do exactly what you propose. You need to ban handguns. You probably need to ban guns in general. Removing guns from the hands of the public is the only way you can get to the gun death levels that you all want, like in Denmark or Switzerland or other countries.

    The problem is, in this country, those of you who propose gun reform never propose that, at least not outside the confines of places like this. Legislation isn't introduced banning private ownership of handguns, or guns in general. Or, if it's proposed, the political will to pass it isn't there. And even if in a very localized area the political will exists, you still have to get around the 2nd Amendment.

    Most people are like me. They agree that it's tragic when someone gets shot and killed. They agree it's horrifying when someone goes into a nightclub and shoots 10 people. But the political will is not there to do away with the Second Amendment and ban private gun ownership. You know that and I know that. Until you change that, all of this discussion is just so much hot air.
    Lynah will never agree, but since we started a decade ago we went from a coal based electrical grid...and we are at the cusp of changing over to full alternatives. A stunning achievement. You may think the world doesn't change (i.e., its hot air)...but change over a generation can be massive. On guns, I argue from several points of view (and they have nothing to do with me):

    1) Unlike many gun control supporters, I don't argue for half measures - i.e., raising the legal limit from 18 to 19. Incremental measures are bargaining chips that usually get negotiated away.
    2) This discussion should be about the complete seachange in our approach to guns. Making a meaningful impact on the numbers of gun deaths. You may think this is impossible - but look at womens rights, smoking, etc. Society in a decade or two is capable of mass improvement.
    3) I don't buy that the 2nd was ever meant as open, free, and without obligations as its been taken. I believe its been converted to that because of abject fear - and probably fear of blacks. And the 2nd would have been guns one moral friend.
    4) So what I'm aiming for is what 'should' be done. The facts say conceal and carry has no moral basis in society. Handguns have no moral basis in society. I'm a progressive. I'm betting against the boomers running the show for another 50 years, betting on public pressure intensifying due to guns being bad in the way smoking is bad, and this story being about reality and the long game.
    Go Gophers!

  20. #760
    Anti-Semantic Brenthoven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Chez Rube
    Posts
    115,297

    Re: 0 Days Since Last Mass Killing: Maybe It's the Person, Not the Gun...

    Quote Originally Posted by BassAle View Post
    how many people got killed by lawn darts? Those things are banned.
    Sort of. They are federally banned for sale/resale. You can still own them, but are encouraged to destroy them. I have a set; the good ones with lead in the tips.
    Never really developed a taste for tequila. Kind of hard to understand how you make a drink out of something that sharp, inhospitable. Now, bourbon is easy to understand.
    Tastes like a warm summer day. -Raylan Givens

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •