Enough is enough. Public massacres and school shootings must stop.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: JBurns

Nobody but military needs war weapons that are meant to kill as many people as possible. Period.

And if the military was ever turned on the populace? Its naive to think because its *insert current year argument* that this couldn't ever happen. It hasn't happened specifically because there are so many guns around here.

Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Maoist China were not that long ago.

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: MOMof3

Once again...define "war weapons".

You don't need an AR-15 to kill a duck or a pig.

Its nice for a pack a wolves though, do you know what a wolf is?

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
a reply to: MOMof3

Once again...define "war weapons".

You don't need an AR-15 to kill a duck or a pig.

Its nice for a pack a wolves though, do you know what a wolf is?

Some sheep don't see the wolves. Usually, those sheep are the first to be eaten by those wolves.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: JBurns

Our children have the constitutional right to not be slaughtered regularly by AR15s.

What about Acid and nail bombs?

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: JBurns

Our children have the constitutional right to not be slaughtered regularly by AR15s.

What about Acid and nail bombs?

And pressure cookers?

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: EternalSolace

You buy an AR-15. The fire the exact same round.
The M4 carbine is a variant of the M16A2. It is an air cooled, gas operated weapon.
Funny you mentioned about the M4, as it came from the M16, which ironically came from the AR-15.

Now the M4 uses a 5.56 X45 mm cartridge, as the primary bullet.
Now the M16 fires a 5.56 mm round.
The AR-15 fires a 5.56 X 45 mm.

So if the AR is a civilian weapon, then why does it fire a round that is designed for a military weapon?

Are you saying a .22 bullet is any less lethal in the right spot?

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: Krakatoa

All of them.

All of them would include those rifles you wanna keep. Can a rifle not kill as well?

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: neo96

Why would a sign stop a killer? If he can shoot kids in cold blood , a sign means nothing. Someone like that shouldn’t have the right to purchase guns. And ban AR15s period.

People who can't have guns legally still get them.

So either ban guns, infringing on a right, or let people defend themselves.

If a sign doesn't work, how can a ban work?

originally posted by: Wardaddy454

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: neo96

Why would a sign stop a killer? If he can shoot kids in cold blood , a sign means nothing. Someone like that shouldn’t have the right to purchase guns. And ban AR15s period.

People who can't have guns legally still get them.

So either ban guns, infringing on a right, or let people defend themselves.

If a sign doesn't work, how can a ban work?

It would work as well as this.......

I constantly hear how armed citizens will magically end conflict. It won't. There have been many shootings where there are armed citizens. How often has it helped? Did it stop the church massacre in Texas? Did it stop the Las Vegas shooting? By the time someone has killed 20 + people before someone reacts and shoots them, that isn't a reasonable solution.

So let's say a teacher was armed. The gunman sets off the fire alarm, and shoots "only" 14 kids before a teacher actually manages to find and shoot the shooter.. if they don't end up panicking and shooting a student themselves. Would you consider that a "win?"

I don't. Your wild west scenario where EVERYONE is packing is ridiculous. Not only would everyone not want to carry a gun, many won't use it in a time of need. Real life situations are quite different than practice. Many times a shooter who has planned this out, can easily kill many people before anyone with a can would even reach them. Would ushers with guns have stopped the Aurora theater shooting? Almost certainly not.

When someone walks into a crowded venue with loads of magazines and a semi automatic weapon, many people are going to die, no matter who else has a gun. You are living in a fantasy dream world if you think someone sees someone with a gun and guns them down old-west style like a shootout on a dirt road. You are living in the distant past.

The only real solution is much better vetting of who gets guns, and actually cracking down on those who sell guns illegally or screw up the process. There actually are solutions other than everyone has guns.. or no one has guns.

originally posted by: Wardaddy454
If a sign doesn't work, how can a ban work?

Well the complete ban on certain drugs works so well so why not try it with guns?

/end sarcasm

a reply to: soberbacchus

the law would disagree with you and its why mentally ill gun owners like my self enjoy our second amendment rights we have a right to guns weather you like it or not and with statements like "put us down" can you really blame us? and FYI the mentally ill are a federally protected class how would you go about legislating against them and only them from owning fire arms? we tried to say blacks couldn't own guns and that was struck down by scotus so there is precedent for it not being legal . if ya wanna focus on a gun problem look at Chicago which last year had 650 murders and this year 52 with 215 wounded ,they have some of the strictest gun laws in the nation and yet they still cant stop gangs from killing each other (for comparison since the 21st century 227 people have been killed in school shootings (does not count 2018 yet) en.wikipedia.org...

www.nytimes.com... link on how magazine restrictions had no effect on drop in crime

OVER the past two decades, the majority of Americans in a country deeply divided over gun control have coalesced behind a single proposition: The sale of assault weapons should be banned. That idea was one of the pillars of the Obama administration’s plan to curb gun violence, and it remains popular with the public. In a poll last December, 59 percent of likely voters said they favor a ban. But in the 10 years since the previous ban lapsed, even gun control advocates acknowledge a larger truth: The law that barred the sale of assault weapons from 1994 to 2004 made little difference. It turns out that big, scary military rifles don’t kill the vast majority of the 11,000 Americans murdered with guns each year. Little handguns do. In 2012, only 322 people were murdered with any kind of rifle, F.B.I. data shows. The continuing focus on assault weapons stems from the media’s obsessive focus on mass shootings, which disproportionately involve weapons like the AR-15, a civilian version of the military M16 rifle. This, in turn, obscures some grim truths about who is really dying from gunshots. Continue reading the main story Annually, 5,000 to 6,000 black men are murdered with guns. Black men amount to only 6 percent of the population. Yet of the 30 Americans on average shot to death each day, half are black males. It was much the same in the early 1990s when Democrats created and then banned a category of guns they called “assault weapons.” America was then suffering from a spike in gun crime and it seemed like a problem threatening everyone. Gun murders each year had been climbing: 11,000, then 13,000, then 17,000. Democrats decided to push for a ban of what seemed like the most dangerous guns in America: assault weapons, which were presented by the media as the gun of choice for drug dealers and criminals, and which many in law enforcement wanted to get off the streets. This politically defined category of guns — a selection of rifles, shotguns and handguns with “military-style” features — only figured in about 2 percent of gun crimes nationwide before the ban. Handguns were used in more than 80 percent of gun murders each year, but gun control advocates had failed to interest enough of the public in a handgun ban. Handguns were the weapons most likely to kill you, but they were associated by the public with self-defense. (In 2008, the Supreme Court said there was a constitutional right to keep a loaded handgun at home for self-defense.)

from above link

a reply to: Wardaddy454

I think, just for the sake of being an asshole, that a pack of feral dogs are far more dangerous than any wolf pack. Wolves will naturally be cautious with humans. A pack of feral dogs, on the other hand, have no natural fear of man.

Never had a wolf, or pack, come any where near me. Off in the distance, yep. I've had to kill more than one feral dog that wasn't taking no for an answer.

But your point remains.

As for the pig? Obviously someone has never been boar/pig hunting. I'd not even contemplate using an AR15 on a pig.

Smallest thing I'll ever use again, is a .308. Note I said smallest. I'll go bigger than that with a bit of warning. Pigs can take some killing.

www.law.nyu.edu...

www.nytimes.com...

www.latimes.com...

www.forbes.com...

A couple of new studies reveal the gun-control hypesters’ worst nightmare…more people are buying firearms, while firearm-related homicides and suicides are steadily diminishing. What crackpots came up with these conclusions? One set of statistics was compiled by the U.S. Department of Justice. The other was reported by the Pew Research Center. According to DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. gun-related homicides dropped 39 percent over the course of 18 years, from 18,253 during 1993, to 11,101 in 2011. During the same period, non-fatal firearm crimes decreased even more, a whopping 69 percent. The majority of those declines in both categories occurred during the first 10 years of that time frame. Firearm homicides declined from 1993 to 1999, rose through 2006, and then declined again through 2011. Non-fatal firearm violence declined from 1993 through 2004, then fluctuated in the mid-to-late 2000s. And where did the bad people who did the shooting get most of their guns? Were those gun show “loopholes” responsible? Nope. According to surveys DOJ conducted of state prison inmates during 2004 (the most recent year of data available), only two percent who owned a gun at the time of their offense bought it at either a gun show or flea market. About 10 percent said they purchased their gun from a retail shop or pawnshop, 37 percent obtained it from family or friends, and another 40 percent obtained it from an illegal source. While firearm violence accounted for about 70 percent of all homicides between 1993 and 2011, guns were used in less than 10 percent of all non-fatal violent crimes. Between 70 percent and 80 percent of those firearm homicides involved a handgun, and 90 percent of non-fatal firearm victimizations were committed with a handgun. Males, blacks, and persons aged 18-24 had the highest firearm homicide rates. The March Pew study, drawn from numbers obtained from the Bureau of Justice Statistics and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, also found a dramatic drop in gun crime over the past two decades. Their accounting shows a 49 percent decline in the homicide rate, and a 75 percent decline of non-fatal violent crime victimization. More than 8 in 10 gun homicide victims in 2010 were men and boys. Fifty-five percent of the homicide victims were black, far beyond their 13 percent share of the population. Pew researchers observed that the huge amount of attention devoted to gun violence incidents in the media has caused most Americans to be unaware that gun crime is “strikingly down” from 20 years ago. In fact, gun-related homicides in the late 2000s were “equal to those not seen since the early 1960s.” Yet their survey found that 56 percent believed gun-related crime is higher, 26 percent believed it stayed about the same, and 6 percent didn’t know. Only 12 percent of those polled thought it was lower. The Pew survey found that while women and elderly were actually less likely to become crime victims, they were more likely to believe gun crime had increased in recent years. On the other hand, men, who were more likely to become victims, were more likely know that the gun rate had dropped.

www.cnn.com...

According to President Donald Trump, the tragic Texas church shooting that left 26 people dead was "a mental health problem at the highest level." If you ask mental health researchers, such mass shootings are much more complicated than that.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

iolence is “....a mental illness problem.... You have people that are mentally ill and they’re going to come through the cracks and they’re going to do things that people will not even believe are possible” squarely, irresponsibly, placed nearly all the blame for gun violence on the mentally ill. And yet, this argument is not only flawed — it’s been widely reported that the vast majority of gun violence is, in fact, committed by people who are not mentally ill — but also part of the problem. No wonder people are afraid. What’s more, stigmatizing mental illness in such a way — making it something dangerous, something to fear — will continue to isolate those suffering and prevent them from getting the help they need. A 2013 study out of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health confirmed this, saying that efforts to imply that all, or even most, incidents of gun violence are at the hands of the mentally ill only serves to increase the stigma directed towards those who suffer. The NCBH’s “Be 1 in a Million” campaign is aiming to lessen the stigma, for one thing, while also calling on citizens to step in where a lack of resources has left many without adequate attention or care. The campaign expands on the organization’s Mental Health First Aid program that has already trained 500,000 people, including First Lady Michelle Obama, in learning to recognize and respond to the signs of mental distress, using tools that include assessment, listening, reassuring, encouraging, and supporting to intervene when someone who is actively suicidal, in the midst of a panic attack, or experiencing symptoms of PTSD. It aims to help people recognize signs of addiction or depression or disordered eating in others, and then how and when to encourage those suffering to get help. Most of all, it aims to help people overcome their fear of getting involved. These are steps that can and will save lives — of the mentally ill, but also, likely, of many others. As a NCBH rep told the Washington Post, “The truth of the matter is that you are more likely to encounter someone who is experiencing a behavioral health condition or crisis” than someone facing a physical emergency. It’s true: Every year, one in four Americans will suffer from a mental illness or addiction. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, suicide is the 10th leading cause of death in this country. And far too many people suffer in silence: Of the nearly 62 million Americans who suffer from mental illness in any given year, just over a third had been to see a mental health professional within the previous year.

en.wikipedia.org... careful anti gunners/anti mentally ill perhaps you too soon will be labled mentally ill for Holophobia

www.epainassist.com...

The primary causes of hoplophobia or fear of guns are earlier traumatic incidents, genetics, learning from parents or siblings or relatives. Generally, a phobia is an extreme, overwhelming, irrational, and disabling fear of a situation, an activity, object, item or place. Hoplophobia or fear of guns is an strangely complicated phobia which includes a collection of sub fears converge in patients with hoplophobia or fear of guns, plus a striking behavior. That person who is suffered from hoplophobia or fear of guns is afraid of the authority figures who are armed, and firearms which are outside the supervision of authority figures. If the sufferers were even close to a gun, they fear what others might do with a gun. They usually start to imagine various situations in their mind. Some people fear that having the gun would guide them physically to be proved as a perpetrator, or they will be attacked, being defenseless and shot with their own gun, crippled, killed etc... Various horrific fantasies always wander in the mind of the sufferers. Symptoms of Hoplophobia or Fear of Guns Generally, a person, who is suffering from hoplophobia or fear of guns, could experience usual phobic symptoms such as concern of dying, extreme sweating, breathlessness, dizziness, nausea, feeling sick, dry mouth, coronary heart palpitations, and inability to assume or speak clearly. Their other symptoms include a sense of detachment from actuality, instantly loss of temperament or a full blown nervousness attack which may also be clearly visible if the condition turns more severe. There are some behavioral disorders of hoplophobia or fear of guns: Patients with hoplophobia or fear of guns imagine their worst nightmare, scariest neighbor, angriest employee or the most notorious student at their child's high school are seen with a gun this weekend at a convention center near you. It happens all the time and they act as though there is nothing they can do about it. The patient gets irritated by claims of freedom, lifestyle or privacy need to keep arms. Afraid of the gun, the user of guns and even the lover of guns. They may want gun control, want an absolute ban on the manufacture, sale, possession, and use of handguns and believe that only police can have the gun.

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Kryties

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Kryties

2011 and 2014 are now not after 1996?
i am confused

None of those you listed is defined as a mass shooting as per the official definition....

From: en.m.wikipedia.org...

defines a "public mass shooting" as one in which four or more people selected indiscriminately, not including the perpetrator, are killed

oh so people get killed but dont fit your bs definition
i see
what utter bs

It's not MY definition, it's the OFFICIAL definition.

Go complain to the people in charge of definitions, not me.

ahahaha
wikipedia is not "official" anything
shall i edit it for you?

www.nap.edu... largest study on gun violence ive found its over 398 pages of pdf and multiple chapters not that any one will actually read it as they seem to have a good deal of cognitive dissonance about the issue already

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: DanteGaland
a reply to: Teikiatsu

That's high population centers vs. low population.

Be intellectually honest, please.

High density population centers tend to have the highest incidence of gun violence, and tend to vote Democrat. I didn't say anything about disarming the people who vote non-Democrat in those areas.

But you are right, the criminal element may not be big on voting. I guess we could say to disarm people who don't vote Republican...

Well you get MORE people in one area TALKING...you get more Democrats.

a reply to: Violater1

Here's an idea. Go virtual for everyone. Stop the public mandated indoctrination and gun free zones. Have kids attend from home where they are safer and there could be a gun in the home if wanted. Take the money given to schools and buy a kid a computer setup good for 4 or 5 years. Done.

originally posted by: staticfl
a reply to: Violater1

Here's an idea. Go virtual for everyone. Stop the public mandated indoctrination and gun free zones. Have kids attend from home where they are safer and there could be a gun in the home if wanted. Take the money given to schools and buy a kid a computer setup good for 4 or 5 years. Done.

Sports gone, social skills gone... all because people don't want sensible gun legislation.