Mass shooting ar Cali bar

[jimmyjazz 46,978]

No, this isn't the CR and nobody wants to see that discussion here.  That said, I and many others have proven your stupid assertion wrong over and over again.  You just don't want to admit it.

[Sbbruin 22,082]

3 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

I'm officially done with you and SB Bruin.

That cuts me.  Deep.

[jimmyjazz 46,978]

25 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

There are over 1000 pages that tell the exact opposite story on TOB.

I'm officially done with you and SB Bruin.

You're so utterly full of shit.  Thank god "you're done with me".  Yeesh.

[Pam Cummings 9,823]

On 12/11/2018 at 11:13 AM, Armybrat said:

I've been done "debating" with the emotional gun control types since TOS. Nothing new to add here, and the same goes for the "other side".

So you people go right ahead and have at it.

 

Here's a newsflash for you: we've been doing it your way for awhile now and it kinda isn't working. So maybe there's something to trying a new way, especially seeing as how there is plentiful evidence that that way works in most every other part of the world.

[Pam Cummings 9,823]

48 minutes ago, Fondren & Main said:

They’re overly emotional vaginas.

Yep. We'll see how you feel about that in the unfortunate event that it's ever your kid laying lifeless on the table waiting to be identified.

[Armybrat 41,322]

8 minutes ago, Pam Cummings said:

Here's a newsflash for you: we've been doing it your way for awhile now and it kinda isn't working. So maybe there's something to trying a new way, especially seeing as how there is plentiful evidence that that way works in most every other part of the world.

We are not like the “rest of the world”. We have a  Constitution with a Bill of Rights.

But if you want to ignore that to change things, let’s start with the 1st Amendment and curtail video games, social media, and personal computer devices.

[Fondren & Main 6,871]

24 minutes ago, Pam Cummings said:

Yep. We'll see how you feel about that in the unfortunate event that it's ever your kid laying lifeless on the table waiting to be identified.

Like clockwork.  New this would be the play call.  You should change your handle to GDGD because you’re so predictable.

[Pam Cummings 9,823]

15 hours ago, Armybrat said:

We are not like the “rest of the world”. We have a  Constitution with a Bill of Rights.

But if you want to ignore that to change things, let’s start with the 1st Amendment and curtail video games, social media, and personal computer devices.

Are you high? I'm saying you can prevent people from being killed by guns by having gun regulations. You change the subject and bring up the first amendment, which has fuck all to do with what we're talking about. That is the definition of arguing in bad faith.

Sorry for wanting guns regulated like every other thing we have in this country. Sorry the writers of the constitution wrote that shit in the 1700s when it took 6 minutes to load a rifle. That shit is not relevant today dude, and whatever little gun fetish you have doesn't change that.

And by the way, do you know what the word "amendment" means?

14 hours ago, Fondren & Main said:

Like clockwork.  New this would be the play call.  You should change your handle to GDGD because you’re so predictable.

Oh sorry, did the mental image of dead kids make shit a little too real for you? Sorry people get fired up over dead kids and you don't. Maybe you should ask yourself why.

Edited December 15, 2018 by Pam Cummings

[GringoSalado 1,652]

3 hours ago, Pam Cummings said:

I'm saying you can prevent people from being killed by guns by having gun regulations. 

The problem is you will never stop saying this, no matter how many more gun control laws get passed. All the existing laws on the books failed in this case, so I'm continually amazed at this persistent belief that we just need more laws, and that will fix things.

 

The only thing that more gun laws will do for certain is create more criminals out of random folks who find themselves on the wrong end of some magazine or caliber restriction ostensibly created to stop insane people from mass murder, which is of course already illegal, immoral, and obviously horribly wrong. 

 

Edit: the more cynical among us may believe the 2nd graph is a welcome side affect in your eyes.

Edited December 15, 2018 by GringoSalado

[fattyflattie 4,640]

I’ve bought a few rifles in the last few months. All had to be shipped to an FFL and a background done before pickup. They will never kill anything other than paper, deer, and some antelope. Please tell me again why I shouldn’t have that right?  None are black, or hold more than 5 shells, if that is what offends you. They all are just as, if not more deadly though. 

[jimmyjazz 46,978]

56 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

I’ve bought a few rifles in the last few months. All had to be shipped to an FFL and a background done before pickup. They will never kill anything other than paper, deer, and some antelope. Please tell me again why I shouldn’t have that right?  None are black, or hold more than 5 shells, if that is what offends you. They all are just as, if not more deadly though. 

Who the hell said you shouldn't have that right?  Be specific and show your work.

[fattyflattie 4,640]

Your claim is there isn’t people on this very site that think there shouldn’t be guns in the general population?  I’m not digging through the 10 previous shooting threads but you’re better than that. 

 

[jimmyjazz 46,978]

There may be, I don't recall seeing them.  It's not germane to this thread because nobody has asserted that, and frankly, it's an extreme outlier argument that is nothing more than bullshit.

If you want to ACTUALLY have a discussion about gun control, start by not misrepresenting the positions of those with whom you are having the discussion.  BurntEyes has already flat  out lied about me and my position on this thread, and it gets really fucking old.  It's childish.

[GringoSalado 1,652]

2 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Who the hell said you shouldn't have that right?  Be specific and show your work.

Well, depending on the rifle and its capacity, I'm going with most, if not all, progressives.

[jimmyjazz 46,978]

9 minutes ago, GringoSalado said:

Well, depending on the rifle and its capacity, I'm going with most, if not all, progressives.

That's presumptuous.  Who on this thread said he shouldn't have those rifles? 

If you must expand the discussion to "most progressives, what is it about those rifles that make them something "most progressives" find unacceptable?  

[GringoSalado 1,652]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

That's presumptuous.  Who on this thread said he shouldn't have those assault rifles? 

If you must expand the discussion to "most progressives, what is it about those rifles that make them something "most progressives" find unacceptable?  

Fify

[GringoSalado 1,652]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

If you must expand the discussion to "most progressives, what is it about those rifles that make them something "most progressives" find unacceptable?  

They appear to hate the Remington .223, which is weird because it's the weakest centerfire caliber I'm familiar with, so I struggle to make sense of progressives' policy preferences in this area.

 

[jimmyjazz 46,978]

Mighty broad brush there, but par for the course.  And again, the wrong forum.  I've made my stance clear dozens of times and it has in no way been stated correctly on this thread or any other for that matter.  I really don't care what you THINK I want, you don't listen to WHAT I want.  Until you do, no discussion.  Take it to the political forum.

[XYZ 2,154]

What are y’all even arguing about?

[Pam Cummings 9,823]

18 hours ago, GringoSalado said:

The problem is you will never stop saying this, no matter how many more gun control laws get passed. All the existing laws on the books failed in this case, so I'm continually amazed at this persistent belief that we just need more laws, and that will fix things.

 

The only thing that more gun laws will do for certain is create more criminals out of random folks who find themselves on the wrong end of some magazine or caliber restriction ostensibly created to stop insane people from mass murder, which is of course already illegal, immoral, and obviously horribly wrong. 

 

 

What laws exist currently? Because i live in Texas and we don't have gun laws that i'm aware of. Please tell me why this logic of "well criminals won't follow gun laws so lets not make them" makes so much sense to you in this specific arena, where it is total illogical nonsense if it pertained to ANY other subject.

 

[fattyflattie 4,640]

Sweet, no laws in Texas. Any y’all can tell me where I can pick up a few fully auto outfits? Maybe some cans off the shelf. 

Jazz, you were looking for ignorance on the anti side, correct?  See above. 

[Pam Cummings 9,823]

4 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Sweet, no laws in Texas. Any y’all can tell me where I can pick up a few fully auto outfits? Maybe some cans off the shelf. 

Jazz, you were looking for ignorance on the anti side, correct?  See above. 

Oh so we're doing semantics now instead of addressing anything i said. Cool. Way to show your intellectual honestly.

 

Can you still buy a gun by not showing an ID and then not have to register it? Is that still a thing that happens regularly?

Edited December 16, 2018 by Pam Cummings

[Pam Cummings 9,823]

https://imgur.com/a/W3WRSfY

 

Yeah bro tons of gun laws here in TX. 

[workswithseed 2,201]

40 minutes ago, Pam Cummings said:

https://imgur.com/a/W3WRSfY

 

Yeah bro tons of gun laws here in TX. 

Thank you, thank you so much for showing how many deaths from guns there are that don't include suicide.

 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/no-states-with-higher-gun-ownership-dont-have-more-gun-murders

[Fondren & Main 6,871]

1 hour ago, Pam Cummings said:

Oh so we're doing semantics now instead of addressing anything i said. Cool. Way to show your intellectual honestly.

 

Can you still buy a gun by not showing an ID and then not have to register it? Is that still a thing that happens regularly?

Why would we want to register guns in this country?

Also, you do have to show ID and pass a background check to buy a gun in Texas.  You’re a dumbass.  Go get your shinebox.

[fattyflattie 4,640]

25 minutes ago, Fondren & Main said:

Why would we want to register guns in this country?

Also, you do have to show ID and pass a background check to buy a gun in Texas.  You’re a dumbass.  Go get your shinebox.

He’s speaking about gunshows and face to face secondary transactions, I believe. Hard to be sure with the hyperbole.  

That said, I haven’t seen a single pro gun poster on the site that’s against bringing gun show/ftf transactions to the same standards as otc/FFL requirements.  I’m sure there are, but they damn sure haven’t been vocal.  Personally, I’m for any background check you want. Hell come to my house and see how they are stored, idgaf. But gtfo limiting certain weapons because they are choice de jour for a couple of flea head psycopaths that decide to shoot up he place.  And personally, idgaf about an AR15; my collection is made of AAA wood on pretty much everything.  

My question above was tongue in cheek a bit, I’ll admit.  The last few rifles I bought are all tremendously more powerful than .556/.223 platform.  All considerably more deadly should you happen to be shot with one.  Is it a better option because I can only fire 5 bullets before reloading?  Is shell capacity is really the end all be all?  My 12 ga with 00 buck will send more projectiles down the pipe than an AR with multiple mag changes.  They are ALL pretty damn deadly in the wrong hands - to be honest, we are really lucky someone who knows what they are doing hasn’t snapped yet.  I’d be much more scared of someone who shoots in regular competitions going off than some high school kid with a low end AR  

 

[GringoSalado 1,652]

2 hours ago, Pam Cummings said:

What laws exist currently? Because i live in Texas and we don't have gun laws that i'm aware of. 

You're just trolling with this bullshit 

[GringoSalado 1,652]

11 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Mighty broad brush there, 

I'll take that to mean you don't favor banning SBRs or mislabeling them as an Assault Rifle, if true I'm genuinely surprised.

 

My bad

[jimmyjazz 46,978]

My concerns, which I'm sure will get mocked, are related to inadequate or poorly performed background checks, sales loopholes, and high capacity magazines.  Even there I can see my way to the idea of an application for purchase of such a thing.

I cannot stress enough that I don't want to get into a giant argument about this shit -- it's not the right place and even if it were it is my experience that things get parsed so fine that the discussion loses all meaning.  Suffice it to say that plenty of "progressives" are just fucking fine with you owning any weapon currently legal today.