5 killed 18 injured in colorado springs gay nightclub shooting

[956 Worldwide 34737]

11 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

Is there a rational basis for targeting high capacity/rate firearms vs “typical” firearm i.e. a pistol?

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/
 

 

Two reasons, off the top of my head:

1. Handguns are most frequently used to kill in connection with another crime— robbery, drug deals, etc; for targeted killings; or in cases you can classify as “crimes of passion” like personal arguments. In addition, pistols are clearly useful for self-defense. But the vast majority of random, mass casualty events are committed with semi-automatic long guns with high-capacity magazines. 
 

2. Semi-automatic long guns with high capacity magazines are only useful to kill lots of people in a short amount of time (spare me “hog hunting”, please). Literally anything else they are used for— hunting, target shooting, varmint gun, self-defense, whatever— you can use another weapon to the same effect.  
 

They are the “easy” one to deal with, and they’re the ones that have an outsize impact on completely uninvolved people just going about their day. 
 

An analogy would be “illegal street racing only kills x percent of people who die in car accidents? Why are we so hard on it when most people die on their daily commute?”

The answer is that it’s easy to target and there’s no legitimate reason to street race. 
 

It is a good point on pistols and I would be really glad if Texas returned to a more reasonable concealed carry policy combined with registration and a higher bar for purchase. 
 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/11/25/gun-rights-test-czech-republic/ 

[conVINCEd 21469]

1 hour ago, 956 Worldwide said:

 

It is a good point on pistols and I would be really glad if Texas returned to a more reasonable concealed carry policy combined with registration and a higher bar for purchase. 
 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/11/25/gun-rights-test-czech-republic/ 

[Mole 4333]

On 11/25/2022 at 12:09 PM, WhatTheBuck said:

Religion of hate.

 

“Anyway, happy thanksgiving.”

IFB churches are self-selecting for extreme views that make for outrageous videos. They thrive off the negative attention. I’ve heard even committed Southern Baptists express concern about the absurd radical conservatism of IFB churches. That’s not to say there isn’t a problem, but the context of the hate preach is relevant.

[Willfully Horn 8039]

7 hours ago, 52-80 said:

Is there a rational basis for targeting high capacity/rate firearms vs “typical” firearm i.e. a pistol?

Pistols are less accurate. There’s  a rational reason for targeting more accurate weapons when considering the shooting of a bunch of people who are in rooms, hallways, stores, and places of worship.

Edited November 26, 2022 by Willfully Horn

[jimmyjazz 46000]

 I mean, if y'all want us to go after the handguns too, I guess I can get on board with that, if it's all or nothing.

[fattyflattie 4639]

9 hours ago, Pam Cummings said:

Nah fuck that. I'm all for making it as expensive as possible for people to own their shooty toys.

Why should the poor be penalized for wanting to protect their themselves, or their home? 

Edited November 26, 2022 by fattyflattie

[fattyflattie 4639]

19 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

 I mean, if y'all want us to go after the handguns too, I guess I can get on board with that, if it's all or nothing.

I wouldn’t hold your breath.  If there’s any weapon that crosses every aisle, demographic, voting bloc, it’s SA pistols.   
 

8 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

Semi-automatic long guns with high capacity magazines are only useful to kill lots of people in a short amount of time (spare me “hog hunting”, please). Literally anything else they are used for— hunting, target shooting, varmint gun, self-defense, whatever— you can use another weapon to the same effect.

So 20m+ in circulation.  ~20 used per year in that fashion. Only thing they are good for.  Not sure I’m following your math.  

[jimmyjazz 46000]

3 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I wouldn’t hold your breath.  If there’s any weapon that crosses every aisle, demographic, voting bloc, it’s SA pistols.  

I'm pleased that you have no idea what I'm saying.

[fattyflattie 4639]

27 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm pleased that you have no idea what I'm saying.

I understood your comment. You’ll likely get nothing and like it, but onward I guess. 

[wildcat09 29359]

Fatty pretending to care about poor people is very darkly hilarious.

[FartingMonk 3608]

58 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I understood your comment. You’ll likely get nothing and like it, but onward I guess. 

I realized I just needed to bow out and not say anything else.  They don't want to hear what I'm talking about and I don't want to hear what they're talking about.  Not worth it.

Edited November 27, 2022 by FartingMonk

[Captainant 27689]

46 minutes ago, FartingMonk said:

I realized I just needed to bow out and not say anything else.  They don't want to hear what I'm talking about and I don't want to hear what they're talking about.  Not worth it.

See ya next time there's a mass murder with a gun purchased earlier that day by someone with a forest of red flags! Hope it's not you or your family in the next one, lord knows y'all won't have any queens around to save your asses

[FartingMonk 3608]

3 minutes ago, Captainant said:

See ya next time there's a mass murder with a gun purchased earlier that day by someone with a forest of red flags! Hope it's not you or your family in the next one, lord knows y'all won't have any queens around to save your asses

Did the fat roly poly purchase the gun the same day? I don't believe that is true.

I've already said I'm all for a 10 day waiting period.  I'm all for beefed up background checks.  I'm all for limiting mags to 15 or less.  I'm all for buying a safe to lock your gun up.  I'm all for tough gun sentences.  Want to raise the gun laws to 21 and up?  I'm all for that too.  All I said was I was against registering for guns because I don't believe that does anything to help gun safety but add more taxes.  But yeah, I'm being unreasonable. 

[FartingMonk 3608]

7 minutes ago, Captainant said:

See ya next time there's a mass murder with a gun purchased earlier that day by someone with a forest of red flags! Hope it's not you or your family in the next one, lord knows y'all won't have any queens around to save your asses

You're mixing two separate shitting incidents together to go with your narrative.  The fuckhead that shot his people in Walmart had a pistol that he bought same day.  The fuckhead that shot the club in Alabama used an AR that he had purchased way before.  The only commonality between the two was they felt that they were bullied and went apeshit and had their "falling down" moment.  Yeah, it fucking sucks.  Maybe we need to quit being shitty ass humans. 

[FartingMonk 3608]

And I do apologize to @jimmyjazzfor saying the buzzword stuff about high firing rate makes everyone look like a big stupid dummy.  Because my semi auto handgun, my semi auto shotgun, and my semi auto AR ALL have the same rate of fire.  The only difference is my handguns go to 15 rounds, my shotguns go to 10 rounds and my AR goes to 30.  But me actually shooting it.  They fire at the same rate. 

[Captainant 27689]

7 minutes ago, FartingMonk said:

You're mixing two separate shitting incidents together to go with your narrative.  The fuckhead that shot his people in Walmart had a pistol that he bought same day.  The fuckhead that shot the club in Alabama used an AR that he had purchased way before.  The only commonality between the two was they felt that they were bullied and went apeshit and had their "falling down" moment.  Yeah, it fucking sucks.  Maybe we need to quit being shitty ass humans. 

¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯ my bad, there's just so many shootings it's easy to get them mixed up, mea culpa. 

Say, could you clarify what narrative I'm promoting here? Because I hope you're picking up that it's too goddamn easy to buy a gun. CO Springs had a bomb threat and police action against him that didn't even touch the NICS system, and Walmart bought it that morning. 

15 minutes ago, FartingMonk said:

I've already said I'm all for a 10 day waiting period.  I'm all for beefed up background checks.  I'm all for limiting mags to 15 or less.  I'm all for buying a safe to lock your gun up.  I'm all for tough gun sentences.  Want to raise the gun laws to 21 and up?  I'm all for that too.  All I said was I was against registering for guns because I don't believe that does anything to help gun safety but add more taxes.  But yeah, I'm being unreasonable. 

I'll bet you'll never ever vote for a single person who would actually advance any of those things from idea to passed legislation. But you're totally helping!

[FartingMonk 3608]

3 minutes ago, Captainant said:

¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯ my bad, there's just so many shootings it's easy to get them mixed up, mea culpa. 

Say, could you clarify what narrative I'm promoting here? Because I hope you're picking up that it's too goddamn easy to buy a gun. CO Springs had a bomb threat and police action against him that didn't even touch the NICS system, and Walmart bought it that morning. 

I'll bet you'll never ever vote for a single person who would actually advance any of those things from idea to passed legislation. But you're totally helping!

Wlarmart doesn't sell AR15s.  and since i've been allowed to vote.  I have gone GWB, Obama, Obama, Trump(just because I think Hillary is the most evil person alive) and 3rd party.  So yeah.

[FartingMonk 3608]

And why don't you ask yourself how you're not helping?  The people in the middle that actually want to listen and say hey that shit makes sense get talked down and berated because they want to have a gun.  All you do is make people who say yeah, there should be something done about it begin to not give a fuck.  So what have YOU done about gun control ecxcept giving lip service?

Edited November 27, 2022 by FartingMonk

[Captainant 27689]

2 minutes ago, FartingMonk said:

Wlarmart doesn't sell AR15s.  and since i've been allowed to vote.  I have gone GWB, Obama, Obama, Trump(just because I think Hillary is the most evil person alive) and 3rd party.  So yeah.

None of those people actually do the voting on laws, in case you missed that schoolhouse rock.

I've seen your cutesy bit before of picking at details to avoid talking about the actual problem of sick people with easy, ready, rapid, and fully legal access to guns. It's old and busted boomergun shit. 

1 minute ago, FartingMonk said:

And why don't you ask yourself how you're not helping?  The people in the middle that actually want to listen and say hey that shit makes sense get talked down and berated because they want to have a gun.  All you do is make people who say yeah, there should be something done about it begin to not give a fuck.  So what have YOU done about gun control ecxcept giving lip service?

Also, that's me. I own guns and want to own guns and think that responsible ownership is important. Hell, I have a bunch of reloading dies and gear and components from shooting IDPA and handloading for my CZ-P07 to get minimal recoil while still hitting power requirements. I know guns and own guns, and I've seen exactly nothing happen in the decade following Sandy Hook and every other horrible terrorist mass shooting, thanks in no small part to rhetoric and talking points like yours. 

I've changed my voting habits pretty much across the board, call and write my legislators (which is honestly just pissing in the wind, but I do it), and I don't lie to myself and everyone else that what we have in place now is working. I know the next step in gun control is going to probably be an overstep. But goddamnit we cannot keep kicking the can down the road. 

But sure, let's play the ACKSHUALLY game to avoid actually thinking critically about the problem 

[FartingMonk 3608]

2 minutes ago, Captainant said:

None of those people actually do the voting on laws, in case you missed that schoolhouse rock.

I've seen your cutesy bit before of picking at details to avoid talking about the actual problem of sick people with easy, ready, rapid, and fully legal access to guns. It's old and busted boomergun shit. 

Also, that's me. I own guns and want to own guns and think that responsible ownership is important. Hell, I have a bunch of reloading dies and gear and components from shooting IDPA and handloading for my CZ-P07 to get minimal recoil while still hitting power requirements. I know guns and own guns, and I've seen exactly nothing happen in the decade following Sandy Hook and every other horrible terrorist mass shooting, thanks in no small part to rhetoric and talking points like yours. 

I've changed my voting habits pretty much across the board, call and write my legislators (which is honestly just pissing in the wind, but I do it), and I don't lie to myself and everyone else that what we have in place now is working. I know the next step in gun control is going to probably be an overstep. But goddamnit we cannot keep kicking the can down the road. 

But sure, let's play the ACKSHUALLY game to avoid actually thinking critically about the problem 

Ummmm, ok.  So who am I supposed to vote for?  I didn't vote for Gov HotWheels.  I think he's a piece of shit. I didn't vote for Teddy Cabo or Beto because they are both idiots.  School house rock me man.  You are so much smarter.

 

What talking point of mine are you actually against?  You've never told me.  You've only told me why my position is wrong, but you've never directly said what was wrong.  I would like to know so I could change.  But what is your rhetoric and talking point that does anyhting?  Let's play ACKSHUALLY to critically talk about the problem because you've really haven't told me a thing except that i'm wrong.  You got me in a Kafkaesque situation.  I'm wrong but no one is telling me what I'm actually wrong about

[FartingMonk 3608]

@Captainantso I've given my position on gun control and all you did was say was well, the fucking politicians you vote for would never go for it.  Ok.  Fair. You also said well the fucking politicians I vote for aren't doing shit for it.  So politics aside.  If you got put in charge and are able to enact rules on guns.  What would they be?  I'd like to hear it.

[52-80 19205]

11 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

 I mean, if y'all want us to go after the handguns too, I guess I can get on board with that, if it's all or nothing.

I’d rather people make their positions defensible, rather than purely rhetorical e.g. “long gun bad” or “all or nothing!”

[Bama Chick 28596]

Anyone who thinks Hillary Clinton is the “evil person alive” when Vladimir Putin, Lincoln Riley, Muhammad Bin Salam, Bashar Al-Assad, Jimbo Fisher, and Donald Trump exist is someone who is not to be taken seriously.

[jimmyjazz 46000]

5 hours ago, 52-80 said:

I’d rather people make their positions defensible, rather than purely rhetorical e.g. “long gun bad” or “all or nothing!”

Well, I didn't say "long gun bad",  and I said "all or nothing" as total snark.

I think "high capacity, high firing rate" is a perfectly sensible position if one wants to help reduce the grisly outcomes of mass shootings, and for obvious reasons.  A high capacity weapon can put more shots on victims before the shooter needs to reload, at which point they are vulnerable.  A high firing rate weapon makes it easier to shoot more people before they can shelter or before help arrives.  I don't think either of these concepts is difficult.

Beyond that, there is no practical use for high capcity, high firing rate weapons over alternatives other than killing lots of people.  None.

[FartingMonk 3608]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

Well, I didn't say "long gun bad",  and I said "all or nothing" as total snark.

I think "high capacity, high firing rate" is a perfectly sensible position if one wants to help reduce the grisly outcomes of mass shootings, and for obvious reasons.  A high capacity weapon can put more shots on victims before the shooter needs to reload, at which point they are vulnerable.  A high firing rate weapon makes it easier to shoot more people before they can shelter or before help arrives.  I don't think either of these concepts is difficult.

Beyond that, there is no practical use for high capcity, high firing rate weapons over alternatives other than killing lots of people.  None.

I understand your point on high capacity guns but like I've said many times.  What the hell is a high firing rate gun?

[jimmyjazz 46000]

41 minutes ago, FartingMonk said:

I understand your point on high capacity guns but like I've said many times.  What the hell is a high firing rate gun?

To my knowledge, most would be modificatied semiauto weapons, like those with the now-illegal bump stock.  That's not the only way to do it, though.  To some degree I would assume stricter limits on capacity would help offset high firing rates, however they are achieved.

Again, getting science to inform the discussions so average Joes don't have to become weapons experts is where the rubber meets the road.  Verbal chaff is infuriating.  

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19127]

On 11/26/2022 at 5:23 AM, Degenerate Gardner said:

Who? I’m late to the party 

workswithseed 

[FartingMonk 3608]

38 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

To my knowledge, most would be modificatied semiauto weapons, like those with the now-illegal bump stock.  That's not the only way to do it, though.  To some degree I would assume stricter limits on capacity would help offset high firing rates, however they are achieved.

Again, getting science to inform the discussions so average Joes don't have to become weapons experts is where the rubber meets the road.  Verbal chaff is infuriating.  

ok now i understand where you are coming from.  I bought a bump stock at one point.  We shot it.  We all agreed holy fuck, this shit is dangerous as fuck and should be illegal as hell.  I've shot automatic weapons before.  Bump stocks are totally against the ethos of knowing what you are shooting at.  But yes, I also agree that to lower how much one can shoot is by lowering the capacity.  Like I've said I am not opposed to 15 round limits.  30 round magazines get heavy as fuck. 

[jimmyjazz 46000]

1 minute ago, FartingMonk said:

ok now i understand where you are coming from.  I bought a bump stock at one point.  We shot it.  We all agreed holy fuck, this shit is dangerous as fuck and should be illegal as hell.  I've shot automatic weapons before.  Bump stocks are totally against the ethos of knowing what you are shooting at.  But yes, I also agree that to lower how much one can shoot is by lowering the capacity.  Like I've said I am not opposed to 15 round limits.  30 round magazines get heavy as fuck. 

On one of these threads someone posted a photo of a 100 round drum magazine, and I think it was for a PISTOL.  How much would that thing weigh fully loaded?  Seems nuts.

[52-80 19205]

2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

I think "high capacity, high firing rate" is a perfectly sensible position if one wants to help reduce the grisly outcomes of mass shootings, and for obvious reasons.  A high capacity weapon can put more shots on victims before the shooter needs to reload, at which point they are vulnerable.  A high firing rate weapon makes it easier to shoot more people before they can shelter or before help arrives.  I don't think either of these concepts is difficult.

Beyond that, there is no practical use for high capcity, high firing rate weapons over alternatives other than killing lots of people.  None.

We know how assault rifles work in theory. I’m just saying if in actuality, do long guns cause, or are even just correlated, with the count of mass shooting deaths. 

The last mass shooting (Walmart) with 6 deaths, afaik, was with handguns.  The bulk of mass shootings are actually gang related shooting with handfuns.  (And the bulk of all shooting deaths….suicide…with handguns).

If all the recorded incidents suggest you could ban assault rifles and there would be 99% of the same gun homicide, the emotionally-appealing solution would not have been the best thing to have pursued.  

In economics you know very well how theres a version of the conversation conducted by politicians that is very juvenile and rhetorical, and the one by the adults (eg the Fed) that are considered and data-driven. Would be great if the latter happened for guns.

If we were to simply banish things with no apparent utility or net positive outcome, Baylor Football would not exist.

[jimmyjazz 46000]

1 minute ago, 52-80 said:

The last mass shooting (Walmart) with 6 deaths, afaik, was with handguns.  

Which doesn't mean that all such shootings are with handguns.  I mean, Las Vegas.  Yes, he had bump stocks, which are now illegal.  Baby steps, I guess.

 

Quote

The bulk of mass shootings are actually gang related shooting with handfuns.

Which, if I'm being honest, tends more towards "fuck around and find out" .  It doesn't mean we couldn't enact laws that would make access to those weapons more difficult, though.

 

Quote

(And the bulk of all shooting deaths….suicide…with handguns).

This is a huge issue, and crosses all kinds of potential actions that could help reduce the death rate.  For one thing, kids tend to be more impulsive and an outsized representative of suicides, so making it more difficult for them to purchase or access guns (gun safes, trigger locks, etc.) is known to be helpful in reducing suicide by gun.

 

Quote

In economics you know very well how theres a version of the conversation conducted by politicians that is very juvenile and rhetorical, and the one by the adults (eg the Fed) that are considered and data-driven. Would be great if the latter happened for guns.

I am all for data-driven solutions.  However, I don't think the small % of deaths by gun in mass shootings necessarily should put them at the bottom of the list of problems to solve.  Those victims are almost always completely innocent.

A multi-pronged solution could actually be very effective while still maintaining the rights of responsible American gun owners.

[FartingMonk 3608]

11 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

On one of these threads someone posted a photo of a 100 round drum magazine, and I think it was for a PISTOL.  How much would that thing weigh fully loaded?  Seems nuts.

I think it's like 4 lbs.  Doesn't seem heavy but hold a 5 lb weight extended out.  It gets heavy fast

[Brisketexan 105177]

5 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

We know how assault rifles work in theory. I’m just saying if in actuality, do long guns cause, or are even just correlated, with the count of mass shooting deaths. 

The last mass shooting (Walmart) with 6 deaths, afaik, was with handguns.  The bulk of mass shootings are actually gang related shooting with handfuns.  (And the bulk of all shooting deaths….suicide…with handguns).

If all the recorded incidents suggest you could ban assault rifles and there would be 99% of the same gun homicide, the emotionally-appealing solution would not have been the best thing to have pursued.  

In economics you know very well how theres a version of the conversation conducted by politicians that is very juvenile and rhetorical, and the one by the adults (eg the Fed) that are considered and data-driven. Would be great if the latter happened for guns.

If we were to simply banish things with no apparent utility or net positive outcome, Baylor Football would not exist.

First, what people don’t really give voice to (although that’s what they’re really concerned about) is “gun murders of innocents.”  We all know that the #1 thing to go to avoid being murdered by gun is “avoid engaging in other criminal activity.”  Don’t be a drug dealing gang member, and you dramatically lower your chances of getting shot.

That’s OUR behavior.  We all feel pretty comfortable that we can control that.  My chances of being shot in a gang/drug turf war are super low.  Because I don’t engage in that life.  But I also have a chance of being shot by some xenophobic nutbar when I go to the Mexican grocery or a Christian extremist if I went to a drag show; my kids had a chance of being shot every day they went to school.  We are NOT engaging in risky behavior.  So, we (most of society) want to limit the risk in those situations where we’re not doing anything risky.

That’s what we’re talking about when we’re talking about gun control and hog capacity mags and such.  So, with that focus, the conversation makes sense.  Let’s have that conversation.

[FartingMonk 3608]

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Which doesn't mean that all such shootings are with handguns.  I mean, Las Vegas.  Yes, he had bump stocks, which are now illegal.  Baby steps, I guess.

 

Which, if I'm being honest, tends more towards "fuck around and find out" .  It doesn't mean we couldn't enact laws that would make access to those weapons more difficult, though.

 

This is a huge issue, and crosses all kinds of potential actions that could help reduce the death rate.  For one thing, kids tend to be more impulsive and an outsized representative of suicides, so making it more difficult for them to purchase or access guns (gun safes, trigger locks, etc.) is known to be helpful in reducing suicide by gun.

 

I am all for data-driven solutions.  However, I don't think the small % of deaths by gun in mass shootings necessarily should put them at the bottom of the list of problems to solve.  Those victims are almost always completely innocent.

A multi-pronged solution could actually be very effective while still maintaining the rights of responsible American gun owners.

And all of what you are saying makes complete sense.  My family was mostly against keeping guns in the house until COVID.  But after all the hate shit against Asian people they said fuck around and find out.  Every single one went shooting with us first.   Got comfortable with guns under supervision decided which one works out best.  Bought a gun bought storage devices.  I don't believe the whole tyrannical government shit.  They've already control what they want to control.  

[52-80 19205]

25 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

My chances of being shot in a gang/drug turf war are super low.  Because I don’t engage in that life.  But I also have a chance of being shot by some xenophobic nutbar when I go to the Mexican grocery

What im asking you is do you think not having an Armalite is going go stop a xenophobic nutbar from shooting up a a Fiesta?  

More specifically, do you think innocent bystanders stand a better chance if he had “just” Glock handguns with standard factory 17-round magazines instead?

If the counter proposal is to target all 10+ capacity magazines, and/or semi-auto firearms instead…they’re both more justified than “get rid of assault rifles” — which seems a kneejerk reaction than something thought-out.

(And if youre a non-psychopath firearm fetishist, a bolt-action or lever-action single-shot rifle is still “cool”….)

[Brisketexan 105177]

What im asking you is do you think not having an Armalite is going go stop a xenophobic nutbar from shooting up a a Fiesta?  

More specifically, do you think innocent bystanders stand a better chance if he had “just” Glock handguns with standard factory 17-round magazines instead?
If the counter proposal is to target all 10+ capacity magazines, and/or semi-auto firearms instead…they’re both more justified than “get rid of assault rifles” — which seems a kneejerk reaction than something thought-out.
(And if youre a non-psychopath firearm fetishist, a bolt-action or lever-action single-shot rifle is still “cool”….)

Recall that I’m a gun owner and have been shooting since I was 5. I know that a mini 14 with a 20 round mag is little different than an AR with a 20 round mag. I want us to 1) limit mag size to 10, and 2) raise the age on buying a semi-auto rifle to at least 21.

And yeah, for some reason, your “random mass shooter” doesn’t pick a Glock. They pick a semi auto rifle, preferably one that looks scary and makes them feel manly and powerful. Because they are often young broken-brained males.

[52-80 19205]

11 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

And yeah, for some reason, your “random mass shooter” doesn’t pick a Glock. They pick a semi auto rifle, preferably one that looks scary and makes them feel manly and powerful.

That could be true.  It could be not.  All I'm asking is for you to cite your sources

[Brisketexan 105177]

That could be true.  It could be not.  All I'm asking is for you to cite your sources

My sources are Uvalde, Colorado Springs, Buffalo, El Paso, Parkland, Pittsburgh, Las Vegas.….no, they’re not exclusive. The Walmart shooting the other day was with a handgun. But come on.

[Macanudo 12999]

18 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

That could be true.  It could be not.  All I'm asking is for you to cite your sources

This, my friends, is what we call a disenguous comment.  The person who asked the question has no interest in advancing the discussion, only in denying that the facts are obvious and not in dispute.

[52-80 19205]

3 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

This, my friends, is what we call a disenguous comment.  The person who asked the question has no interest in advancing the discussion, only in denying that the facts are obvious and not in dispute.

Nothing is more assuring of the truth than claiming "this cant be disputed and questioning is disallowed"

[FartingMonk 3608]

25 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

My sources are Uvalde, Colorado Springs, Buffalo, El Paso, Parkland, Pittsburgh, Las Vegas.….no, they’re not exclusive. The Walmart shooting the other day was with a handgun. But come on.

I've changed my mind on not making the gun age 21 a few months back.  I realized.  The mass majority of school shootings would stop because the reason they use ARs is because you only have to be 18.  The rest is due to pure hate.  It wouldn't matter what you would limit.  We have a deranged society.  They want to cause harm.  and that's what they are going to do.  I recently started writing a book and as I was writing it, I was like omg if I were to snap.  I could cause a lot of fucking harm.  And it wasn't using guns. 

[Brisketexan 105177]

1 hour ago, 52-80 said:

Nothing is more assuring of the truth than claiming "this cant be disputed and questioning is disallowed"

Disingenous questioning is not posed in good faith.  That's the problem.  You and I damn well know that ARs are the preferred weapon for American nutbar mass shooters of innocents.  We all know that.  Sure, some shootings have happened with other platforms.

But come the fuck on -- even on this board we acknowledge that it's almost become cliche -- angry young man with AR shoots up a school/store/synagogue etc.

[FartingMonk 3608]

58 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Disingenous questioning is not posed in good faith.  That's the problem.  You and I damn well know that ARs are the preferred weapon for American nutbar mass shooters of innocents.  We all know that.  Sure, some shootings have happened with other platforms.

But come the fuck on -- even on this board we acknowledge that it's almost become cliche -- angry young man with AR shoots up a school/store/synagogue etc.

I get his point.  And I think ARs marketing campaign went bad.  No single company manufactures ARs.  Their platform has become a category of its own.  I'm just using it as a comparison but if every car manufacturer made some hybrid vehicle that became generic it would become inherently more popular and would kill more people.  Not saying it's right or wrong.  But you can get an AR anything now.  I have AE pistols, shotguns, up all the way to the villainous rifle.

[Brisketexan 105177]

Just now, FartingMonk said:

I get his point.  And I think ARs marketing campaign went bad.  No single company manufactures ARs.  Their platform has become a category of its own.  I'm just using it as a comparison but if every car manufacturer made some hybrid vehicle that became generic it would become inherently more popular and would kill more people.  Not saying it's right or wrong.  But you can get an AR anything now.  I have AE pistols, shotguns, up all the way to the villainous rifle.

And....this is his red-herring question WORKING.

Note that my position is that I do NOT seek to "ban the AR platform."  I only pointed out that the culture around the platform is another symptom of our utter brokenness, and the truly shitty nature of American gun culture.

What I ACTUALLY suggested didn't use the term "AR" at all.  I suggested 1) raising the age on all semi-auto weapons, and 2) capping mag size at 10 for such weapons.  All AR platforms will fall within that proposal, but it is not limited to ARs.  "Scary black rifle" is what our twisted gun culture wants, but the policy doesn't have to be and shouldn't be "scary black rifle"-based.  It should keep young men with brains that aren't fully developed from acquiring weapons where they can send lots of lead downrange fast, without reloading.

It's not perfect.  But it's better.  I mean, if we want PERFECTLY safe roads, we'd lower the speed limit everywhere to 5 mph.  But we don't.  We strike a balance.  Today, with firearms, we have no balance.  Because one side of the argument has successfully entrenched the position that any rule or regulation beyond "anyone can acquire whatever firearm whenever they want and be able to put as much lead downrange as they want without limitation" is unacceptable.  Looked at objectively, it's fucking insanity.  But, "fucking insanity" is our brand, so fuck it, why deviate from the path.

Thoughts and prayers [just my placeholder for the next one of these.  And the next.  And the next.  Ad infinitum]

[jimmyjazz 46000]

3 hours ago, 52-80 said:

What im asking you is do you think not having an Armalite is going go stop a xenophobic nutbar from shooting up a a Fiesta?  

More specifically, do you think innocent bystanders stand a better chance if he had “just” Glock handguns with standard factory 17-round magazines instead?

If the counter proposal is to target all 10+ capacity magazines, and/or semi-auto firearms instead…they’re both more justified than “get rid of assault rifles” — which seems a kneejerk reaction than something thought-out.

(And if youre a non-psychopath firearm fetishist, a bolt-action or lever-action single-shot rifle is still “cool”….)

Congratulations for doing exactly what I said y'all shouldn't do.  Gaslighting, nit-picking, missing the entire fucking point.  I hate this topic.  Fuck it.  You ARE part of the problem.  

THERE IS NO "GOOD FAITH".

Edited November 27, 2022 by jimmyjazz

[FartingMonk 3608]

12 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

And....this is his red-herring question WORKING.

Note that my position is that I do NOT seek to "ban the AR platform."  I only pointed out that the culture around the platform is another symptom of our utter brokenness, and the truly shitty nature of American gun culture.

What I ACTUALLY suggested didn't use the term "AR" at all.  I suggested 1) raising the age on all semi-auto weapons, and 2) capping mag size at 10 for such weapons.  All AR platforms will fall within that proposal, but it is not limited to ARs.  "Scary black rifle" is what our twisted gun culture wants, but the policy doesn't have to be and shouldn't be "scary black rifle"-based.  It should keep young men with brains that aren't fully developed from acquiring weapons where they can send lots of lead downrange fast, without reloading.

It's not perfect.  But it's better.  I mean, if we want PERFECTLY safe roads, we'd lower the speed limit everywhere to 5 mph.  But we don't.  We strike a balance.  Today, with firearms, we have no balance.  Because one side of the argument has successfully entrenched the position that any rule or regulation beyond "anyone can acquire whatever firearm whenever they want and be able to put as much lead downrange as they want without limitation" is unacceptable.  Looked at objectively, it's fucking insanity.  But, "fucking insanity" is our brand, so fuck it, why deviate from the path.

Thoughts and prayers [just my placeholder for the next one of these.  And the next.  And the next.  Ad infinitum]

But I think that might be part of the problem.  People believe the AR platform does more than anything else.  It's just a gun that has the same capability as any other gun.  The ARs counterpart the AK variant does the same damned thing.  We don't push for the AK ban although they do the exact same thing.  

[jimmyjazz 46000]

7 minutes ago, FartingMonk said:

But I think that might be part of the problem.  People believe the AR platform does more than anything else.  It's just a gun that has the same capability as any other gun.  The ARs counterpart the AK variant does the same damned thing.  We don't push for the AK ban although they do the exact same thing.  

STOP.  Write the laws based on science and truth, not on misguided public perception.  You are just furthering the obvious point that you don't give a flying fuck if people get killed.  You really don't.   You want easy access to your pew pew toys and you want to pay minimum dollar for them.

That's it.

Fuck it.  I tried really hard to discuss this with you chucklefucks over the past couple of days but you have revealed yourselves to be the same bullshit purveyors "we" have been arguing with for years.

Seriously, fuck it.  I am this close to saying "let's go for every fucking gun".  Is that what you want?

There is no good faith on your side.  None whatsover.  

Edited November 28, 2022 by jimmyjazz

[Captainant 27689]

3 hours ago, 52-80 said:

Nothing is more assuring of the truth than claiming "this cant be disputed and questioning is disallowed"

Strikingly similar argument to one Alex Jones who has argued your argument with relation to mass shootings. Yikes, dawg. 

[FartingMonk 3608]

11 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

STOP.  Write the laws based on science and truth, not on misguided public perception.  You are just furthering the obvious point that you don't give a flying fuck if people get killed.  You really don't.   You want easy access to your pew pew toys and you want to pay minimum dollar for them.

That's it.

Fuck it.  I tried really hard to discuss this with you chucklefucks over the past couple of days but you have revealed yourselves to be the same bullshit purveyors "we" have been arguing with for years.

Seriously, fuck it.  I am this close to saying "let's go for every fucking gun".  Is that what you want?

There is no good faith on your side.  None whatsover.  

Ok.  if you want me to get fucking rude with you then let's go.  You're a dumb fuck that doesn't understand shit.  GET that into your feeble fucking brain.  I've never said shit about not wanting to make rules more strict.  You fucking dumb bitch ass feels like you know what you're talking about.  You want to talk about the science and the fucking truth, but you don't even understand the science behind the gun.  I don't consider guns to be pew pew toys.  SO fuck you

[Fondren & Main 6726]