Mass Shootings

[Chrispy 132]

Just now, David Dennison said:

Addressing the porous border won't have any affect on the majority of undocumented immigrants from Mexico and Central America.

I highly doubt that. The point is moot, however; because the border will remain the same. The cartel will continue to slice the limbs off of victims with chainsaws and the David’s of the world will equate them with Trump. It takes all kinds, I suppose. 

[Chrispy 132]

6 minutes ago, Lurch said:

 

This post contains an amazing lack of self awareness.

 

Enlighten me, I’m willing to change my mind. 

[David Dennison 19542]

1 minute ago, Chrispy said:

I highly doubt that. The point is moot, however; because the border will remain the same. The cartel will continue to slice the limbs off of victims with chainsaws and the David’s of the world will equate them with Trump. It takes all kinds, I suppose. 

How do most immigrants from south of the border get into and stay in the United States?

[Chrispy 132]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

How do most immigrants from south of the border get into and stay in the United States?

Most cross the border and many fly. I’m not sure I’m following, the issue is the flow of guns and drugs. 

[David Dennison 19542]

2 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

Most cross the border and many fly. I’m not sure I’m following, the issue is the flow of guns and drugs. 

Most are visa overstays. 

That's why increased border security and wall talk is silly. It will do nothing about the most popular method for getting into the United States.

[Chrispy 132]

Just now, David Dennison said:

Most are visa overstays. 

That's why increased border security and wall talk is silly. It will do nothing about the most popular method for getting into the United States.

That’s not the claim you made. You said it wouldn’t have any effect, which is incorrect and completely off topic. They’re not flying in the drugs and weapons, they’re coming in on boats and through complex tunnels. I’m not sure why you insist on making it about immigrants over staying their visa’s, that’s not the discussion. 

[David Dennison 19542]

Just now, Chrispy said:

That’s not the claim you made. You said it wouldn’t have any effect, which is incorrect and completely off topic. They’re not flying in the drugs and weapons, they’re coming in on boats and through complex tunnels. I’m not sure why you insist on making it about immigrants over staying their visa’s, that’s not the discussion. 

You brought up the porous border. I guess you weren't talking about the actual border but rather border in the abstract. 

[Michael Knight 13223]

2 hours ago, Chrispy said:

Australia is an island and doesn’t have a pourous border with a country run by a criminal organization. In other words, good luck. 

I dunno if I would call Trump a criminal organization. 

[Chrispy 132]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

You brought up the porous border. I guess you weren't talking about the actual border but rather border in the abstract. 

The guns and drugs are coming in at the actual border. 

[David Dennison 19542]

3 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

The guns and drugs are coming in at the actual border. 

Most contraband enters the US through legal ports of entry. Increased border security and a wall won't do much to stop drugs or guns.

Edited May 27, 2018 by David Dennison

[fattyflattie 4640]

35 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

You're going to have to pay for drug addicts and welfare queens on the front end or the back end. How do you want to do it? Before or after they get into the criminal justice system?

You’re right, unfortunately. If that’s the case though, back end I guess. That way we can all suffer together. 

[XYZ 2154]

Stop talking about drugs and border. Start another thread for that.

[David Dennison 19542]

1 minute ago, XYZ said:

Stop talking about drugs and border. Start another thread for that.

Let's get things back on track.

We need to repeal the Second Amendment.

[Chrispy 132]

3 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Most contraband enters the US through legal ports of entry. Increased border security and a wall won't do much to stop drugs or guns.

Which is the actual border, correct? Expanding DEA staffing, renovating outdated equipment, combined with integrating newer technology is the preferable route. It’s admittedly an incredibly difficult task, which is why pointing to Australia as an example is silly. 

[Chrispy 132]

4 minutes ago, XYZ said:

Stop talking about drugs and border. Start another thread for that.

Will do. 

[David Dennison 19542]

3 minutes ago, Chrispy said:

Which is the actual border, correct? Expanding DEA staffing, renovating outdated equipment, combined with integrating newer technology is the preferable route. It’s admittedly an incredibly difficult task, which is why pointing to Australia as an example is silly. 

I guess Australia does have actual borders, thus making the analogy apt.

Edited May 27, 2018 by David Dennison

[Chrispy 132]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

I guess Australia does have actual borders, thus making the analogy apt.

Disagreed, but for the sake of this thread, let’s continue to protect the 2nd amendment. 

[David Dennison 19542]

1 minute ago, Chrispy said:

Disagreed, but for the sake of this thread, let’s continue to protect the 2nd amendment. 

Let's not.

[fattyflattie 4640]

46 minutes ago, Lurch said:

 

And you’re why it will take 20+ years. Fortunately for our descendants you’re not immortal.

 

No, immortal I am not. Luckily I’ve instilled the same values in my children, as has (likely many other) lawful gun owners, so when I do die, 3 will take my place.   And I’ll bet you whatever you want, they’ll all be able to walk into an Academy on their 18th, maybe 21st bday, and buy a gun.

Sorry you don’t like it. But half the country is still red, despite the dipshit POTUS.   People aren’t going to give up a past time they’ve enjoyed for generations and generations over some random acts of violence that can be curbed/slowed (will never be stopped) in other ways. I’d vote to spend dollars to do everything else before buy backs, and I’m certain a large portion of the country would too.   

Fact is, lots and lots of wealthy people hunt. Lots and lots of wealthy  people own land.  Lots of wealthy people shoot for sport (go check what a Kolar skeet O/U will run you) These are the same people that shape our country.  

Good luck with your crusade. Maybe it will become a state issue and you can fuck off to California or New York and be in a gun free utopia.  

Whichever political party tries to forcably take the law abiding citizens guns will dig their own grave in that instant. There’s a reason it hasn’t happened, even though we’ve been committing gun violence since the first ones were rolled off the line. 

[David Dennison 19542]

1 minute ago, fattyflattie said:

No, immortal I am not. Luckily I’ve instilled the same values in my children, as has (likely many other) lawful gun owners, so when I do die, 3 will take my place.   And I’ll bet you whatever you want, they’ll all be able to walk into an Academy on their 18th, maybe 21st bday, and buy a gun.

Sorry you don’t like it. But half the country is still red, despite the dipshit POTUS.   People aren’t going to give up a past time they’ve enjoyed for generations and generations over some random acts of violence that can be curbed/slowed (will never be stopped) in other ways. I’d vote to spend dollars to do everything else before buy backs, and I’m certain a large portion of the country would too.   

Fact is, lots and lots of wealthy people hunt. Lots and lots of wealthy  people own land.  Lots of wealthy people shoot for sport (go check what a Kolar skeet O/U will run you) These are the same people that shape our country.  

Good luck with your crusade. Maybe it will become a state issue and you can fuck off to California or New York and be in a gun free utopia.  

Whichever political party tries to forcably take the law abiding citizens guns will dig their own grave in that instant. There’s a reason it hasn’t happened, even though we’ve been committing gun violence since the first ones were rolled off the line. 

No one on the left has argued for a gun free country. No one on the left has called for taking the guns of law abiding citizens. 

[GW Hayduke 1957]

20 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

No one on the left has argued for a gun free country. No one on the left has called for taking the guns of law abiding citizens. 

Yeah. This argument seems to be a strawman IMO. No one is wanting someone to give up their past time. No one is wanting to keep hunters from having guns. I think this argument tends to be the result of identity politics, the “responsible gun owner” vs the “gun grabbers” and the slippery slope thing. The issue IMO is the “responsible gun owner” should see themselves as responsible citizens, willing to take steps to make society safer. Steps such as licensing, registering, selling back firearms they don’t want to register, etc. 

[jimmyjazz 47200]

45 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

People aren’t going to give up a past time they’ve enjoyed for generations and generations over some random acts of violence that can be curbed/slowed (will never be stopped) in other ways. I’d vote to spend dollars to do everything else before buy backs, and I’m certain a large portion of the country would too.   

Fact is, lots and lots of wealthy people hunt. Lots and lots of wealthy  people own land.  Lots of wealthy people shoot for sport

I don't want to keep you from hunting, or protecting your livestock, or shooting for sport.  I think a large majority of those who would like to see change in our gun laws would agree.

[ndawg 1242]

1 hour ago, Chrispy said:

You give me the awful impression of someone who has a tenuous grasp of the opioid epidemic. Heroin is cheaper and is what most addicts turn to once their prescriptions run their course or they are running low on money. 

So? They're getting hooked on pharmaceuticals. Take away the prescription drug abuse and the market for heroin and fentanyl takes a *huge* hit.

[HRSchenker 2341]

4 hours ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Who do you think arms the National Guard?

Are we talking about the armed forces or the citizen's militia? What you're asking is apples and oranges.

[Chrispy 132]

33 minutes ago, ndawg said:

So? They're getting hooked on pharmaceuticals. Take away the prescription drug abuse and the market for heroin and fentanyl takes a *huge* hit.

You’re arguing to decrease the demand, of which I’m in total agreement. Until then, the addicts will turn to the heroin that is pouring across our border. That’s why I found your original claim so strange. 

But to be respectful to other’s requests, I think we should stick to gun control. 

[XYZ 2154]

51 minutes ago, HRSchenker said:

Are we talking about the armed forces or the citizen's militia? What you're asking is apples and oranges.

What citizens’ militia? Where is this militia? Is there one in central Texas so that I can go and check it out?

[VRHorn 732]

4 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

 

Edited May 27, 2018 by VRHorn
Nm, off topic

[XYZ 2154]

2 minutes ago, VRHorn said:

I am assuming you are pro choice, correct?

See, that’s just trolling.

[VRHorn 732]

Just now, XYZ said:

See, that’s just trolling.

Not trolling,  but certainly off topic, so I removed it. Unfortunately, I can’t delete it.

[Aqua Buddha 14806]

4 hours ago, HRSchenker said:

Are we talking about the armed forces or the citizen's militia? What you're asking is apples and oranges.

There is no "citizen's militia."  Why do you think there is?

When Abbott wheeled into action to protect us from Jade Helm, did he activate the "citizen's militia?"  Who are these people and do they have any official status?

[Aqua Buddha 14806]

8 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

The national guard is a govt military org.  A militia is most definitely a civilian force.  

So, who calls up this "civilian militia" and who is in it?  Please be detailed on the process and how they're activated.  Who is in command of the "civilian militia" once they're called up?  Does a state governor call them up?  Does the President?  I mean, how does that work?  When Abbott wheeled into action to protect us from Jade Helm, he didn't call up the "civilian militia."  Why not?  Tell us your thoughts about why that didn't happen.  

Never mind the whole point of the National Guard is that it's the "civilian militia" you think you're talking about.  They have day jobs during the week, train periodically, and can be called up in a moment's notice for domestic operations or to go to war.  I can't recall a time in American history where the "civilian militia" was activated.  

I'm curious on the differences you think exist between the "civilian militia" and the National Guard.  

[HRSchenker 2341]

59 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

There is no "citizen's militia."  Why do you think there is?

When Abbott wheeled into action to protect us from Jade Helm, did he activate the "citizen's militia?"  Who are these people and do they have any official status?

You're in the militia. I'm in the militia. You don't think a citizen's militia exists? George Mason thinks there is. "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people"

[Aqua Buddha 14806]

11 minutes ago, HRSchenker said:

You're in the militia. I'm in the militia. You don't think a citizen's militia exists? George Mason thinks there is. "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people"

I am not in "the militia."  No one can call me up for anything for any reason.  It's about like saying I can deputize myself in law enforcement and start arresting people. No, I can't.

Edited May 28, 2018 by Aqua Buddha

[David Dennison 19542]

1 minute ago, Aqua Buddha said:

I am not in "the militia."  No one can call me up for anything for any reason.  It's about like saying I can deputize myself in law enforcement and start arresting people. No, I can't.

The United States of America can. You made sure of that when you turned 18.

[Aqua Buddha 14806]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

The United States of America can. You made sure of that when you turned 18.

Not anymore they can't.

[HRSchenker 2341]

1 minute ago, Aqua Buddha said:

I am not in "the militia."  No one can call me up for anything for any reason.  It's about like saying I can deputize myself in law enforcement and start arresting people. No, I can't.

I think you're applying some kind of formality to the militia that just doesn't exist. It's the people who are supposed to rebel against a tyrannical government. There are no uniforms for the militia. Remember that the Stuart kings destroyed the citizen's militia not by killing them or jailing them but by disarming them. That's why the second amendment refers to a "well regulated militia". It has nothing to do with the formality of enrolling in the service, wearing a uniform, being deputized, etc.

[Aqua Buddha 14806]

2 minutes ago, HRSchenker said:

I think you're applying some kind of formality to the militia that just doesn't exist. It's the people who are supposed to rebel against a tyrannical government. There are no uniforms for the militia. Remember that the Stuart kings destroyed the citizen's militia not by killing them or jailing them but by disarming them. That's why the second amendment refers to a "well regulated militia". It has nothing to do with the formality of enrolling in the service, wearing a uniform, being deputized, etc.

When was the last time we called up a non "uniformed" militia?

[Eskimohorn 5682]

The United States of America can. You made sure of that when you turned 18.

Son, there aint no draft no more

[fattyflattie 4640]

8 hours ago, David Dennison said:

No one on the left has argued for a gun free country. No one on the left has called for taking the guns of law abiding citizens. 

So what does post #775 and #776 say to you? Voluntary buy backs, then warnings, then jail time?  Maybe I misunderstood. Please enlighten me. 

“It just takes time. Guns won’t be taken out of the public overnight. Voluntary buybacks etc for a long time, then if a person has a gun after that period, you start with warnings, then fines, then eventually jail time. But that’s on a 20-30 year timeline. “

Please explain the the warnings and fines for the guns I legally own. 

Edited May 28, 2018 by fattyflattie

[R2D2 91]

Next mass shooting is on the verge .

[scottsins 2047]

12 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

No, immortal I am not. Luckily I’ve instilled the same values in my children, as has (likely many other) lawful gun owners, so when I do die, 3 will take my place.   And I’ll bet you whatever you want, they’ll all be able to walk into an Academy on their 18th, maybe 21st bday, and buy a gun.

Sorry you don’t like it. But half the country is still red, despite the dipshit POTUS.   People aren’t going to give up a past time they’ve enjoyed for generations and generations over some random acts of violence that can be curbed/slowed (will never be stopped) in other ways. I’d vote to spend dollars to do everything else before buy backs, and I’m certain a large portion of the country would too.   

Fact is, lots and lots of wealthy people hunt. Lots and lots of wealthy  people own land.  Lots of wealthy people shoot for sport (go check what a Kolar skeet O/U will run you) These are the same people that shape our country.  

Good luck with your crusade. Maybe it will become a state issue and you can fuck off to California or New York and be in a gun free utopia.  

Whichever political party tries to forcably take the law abiding citizens guns will dig their own grave in that instant. There’s a reason it hasn’t happened, even though we’ve been committing gun violence since the first ones were rolled off the line. 

I have a general question about actual implementation.

What if, as a “compromise”, whichever weapons are subject to a new prohibition...are covered by a registration/grandfather clause.  IOW, there is a time period where someone can register their “about to be banned” weapon (if it is not already registered to them).  After the law goes into effect, possession by those to who the weapon is not registered becomes a crime.

Some gun control folks won’t approve because there are still a LOT of these weapons at large.  Some gun rights folks will dig in and state that the registration requirement is an onerous restriction of their rights.

To me, the disapproval by the more outer segments of the issue is basically evidence that it’s a decent, reasonable compromise.

*  I’m not addressing the other questions of whether this would “work to stop all of the shootings”, etc.  I just always wonder how people feel about the idea.

[GW Hayduke 1957]

7 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

So what does post #775 and #776 say to you? Voluntary buy backs, then warnings, then jail time?  Maybe I misunderstood. Please enlighten me. 

“It just takes time. Guns won’t be taken out of the public overnight. Voluntary buybacks etc for a long time, then if a person has a gun after that period, you start with warnings, then fines, then eventually jail time. But that’s on a 20-30 year timeline. “

Please explain the the warnings and fines for the guns I legally own. 

If your guns are legally owned like you said and registered and licenced then warnings, fines, etc. wouldn’t be relevant.

[Neonmoon 38130]

17 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

So what does post #775 and #776 say to you? Voluntary buy backs, then warnings, then jail time?  Maybe I misunderstood. Please enlighten me. 

“It just takes time. Guns won’t be taken out of the public overnight. Voluntary buybacks etc for a long time, then if a person has a gun after that period, you start with warnings, then fines, then eventually jail time. But that’s on a 20-30 year timeline. “

Please explain the the warnings and fines for the guns I legally own. 

I was merely pointing out all the stupidity in the “can’t put the genie back in the bottle” argument. You can calm down. No one is coming for your guns. 

Edited May 28, 2018 by Neonmoon

[jimmyjazz 47200]

13 hours ago, Aqua Buddha said:

So, who calls up this "civilian militia" and who is in it?

[David Dennison 19542]

11 hours ago, fattyflattie said:

So what does post #775 and #776 say to you? Voluntary buy backs, then warnings, then jail time?  Maybe I misunderstood. Please enlighten me. 

“It just takes time. Guns won’t be taken out of the public overnight. Voluntary buybacks etc for a long time, then if a person has a gun after that period, you start with warnings, then fines, then eventually jail time. But that’s on a 20-30 year timeline. “

Please explain the the warnings and fines for the guns I legally own. 

I guess you really should worry.

[R2D2 91]

Talk talk talk bang bang bang.

[fattyflattie 4640]

16 hours ago, GW Hayduke said:

If your guns are legally owned like you said and registered and licenced then warnings, fines, etc. wouldn’t be relevant.

I don’t think anyone here has an issue with that. That’s why I was asking for clarification on the post. It also was on the heels of another post mentioning the govt buying out all domestic manufacturers, shutting down any importation, etc. 

Apologies for misinterpreting the post. 

[bernorange 8385]

On 5/27/2018 at 10:38 AM, Neonmoon said:

... And no, you’re not going to get all the guns back. Just like you can’t stop all crime, but you will reduce the availability, and therefore the  probability of gun violence

I don't know about the "probability of gun violence", but the incidence of (overall) gun violence has been in decline for over a decade now (already posted source for this a while back in this thread) even through the record number of gun sales (as measured by NICS requests) in recent years.

.

[bernorange 8385]

For GW and the Australia evangelicals:

https://www.americas1stfreedom.org/articles/2017/11/27/australia-a-disappearing-dream-of-freedom/

[bernorange 8385]

So I finally found a little bit of time this morning to read through the country by country stats that GW has posted several times in this thread as a justfication for more gun control.  The numbers are all pulled from gunpolicy.org ( a publication maintained by the University of Sydney).  I cannot find on the site a clear description of where they are sourcing their numbers or doing any analysis of the same before comparing.  I'm pretty sure they don't because it would highlight just how meaningless it would render the comparisons and that's not the purpose of the site.  That site is designed to promote gun control/confiscation.  Here's a look at the bias of the principals at work on that site (emphasis mine):

Quote

GunPolicy.org publishes evidence from hundreds of jurisdictions, allowing country-by-country comparisons of armed violence and firearm regulation around the world. These pages confirm that many, and probably most small arms are not misused, and that legitimate reasons exist for gun ownership.

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region

Quote

...

GunPolicy.org is hosted by the Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney. The School provides internationally recognised leadership in public health by advancing and disseminating knowledge — in this case, supporting global efforts to prevent gun injury. A close partner organisation is the Centre for Armed Violence Reduction.

With its partners and contributors, GunPolicy.org promotes the public health model of firearm injury prevention, as adopted by the World Health Organisation's Global Campaign for Violence Prevention and the United Nations Programme of Action on small arms. ...

http://www.gunpolicy.org/about

GW, as I mentioned several pages back, they are using disparate sources for their numbers and the underlying data is not collected/tracked the same across all jurisdictions.  You really can't draw any meaningful conclusions from comparing different varieties of fruits and vegetables.

Edited May 29, 2018 by bernorange