Challenge to those in favor of more gun control.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: kurthall

I can think of 2 off the top of my head where the guns were obtained illegally, so got a link to support your 80% claim?


I know people that hunt with an AR-15, so do you have any actual suggestions or just going to throw more emotional knee jerk stories at me?

I forgot to put it in my OP....I added it....here is a link again. Sorry about that. I usually DO NOT join gun control threads, but ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.....Also I am not saying people should not have guns. A shotgun for hunting fine, a hand gun for protection fine.


www.nbcnews.com...

a reply to: kurthall


No problem thank you for the link.

originally posted by: aethertek
a reply to: DBCowboy

If you really want a law, I would start with the Department of Education.

Then why side with & vote for those that defunded & gutted public education over the past decades.

K~

Because the DOE has failed us all completely and totally.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Well that will be fine for the blue states as we usually find the wherewithal to fund our schools & education systems but for the red states that rely on the welfare received in federal dollars from the blue that will only exacerbate the problems in those locals.

K~

originally posted by: aethertek
a reply to: DBCowboy

Well that will be fine for the blue states as we usually find the wherewithal to fund our schools & education systems but for the red states that rely on the welfare received in federal dollars from the blue that will only exacerbate the problems in those locals.

K~

Let's make something real clear; I'm looking at real, viable solutions to the problems and you're pushing a politically driven agenda.

Local districts can raise property taxes, cut superintendent pays, do whatever they need to hire instructors to teach these skills obviously lacking.

You just want to push an agenda, piss on the Constitution and have a police-state.

If only a few of the teachers were packing pistols, this could have been avoided or reduced at least. The only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun. I or you can go get all the guns you want, with no paper work. You can buy them from criminal if you want, and guess what, those criminal do not care about any laws. I know, lets make murder illegal! Hell, that's it!!!! Get it?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

We cannot have a debate searching for real solutions until we all agree to be intellectually honest with each other. The media spins information to meet their political leanings as evidenced by the NBC article you referenced. One sentence gives the reason why the "Obama-era" regulation was rolled back.

The rule, which was finalized in December, added people receiving Social Security checks for mental illnesses and people deemed unfit to handle their own financial affairs to the national background check database.

If the inability to handle financial affairs is a sign of mental instability then we have an enormous problem in this country.

The rest of the article paints only a picture of how the Republicans, Trump and the NRA are rolling back a law to disarm the mentally ill. In todays society not many actually read the article versus scanning it or just its headline. The article is devoid of opposing views which is a violation of the trust we place in journalists.

In my opinion, the real reason for Obama's "rule" (Dec. 2017) was so he could push through gun restrictions during the last days of his administration having failed to achieve it legislatively.

In fairness, if the shooter was receiving social security because of his mental illness this "rule" could have worked in this case. Assuming of course everyone reports and the authorities actually include the data in the database.

Also, in fairness, the inability to handle their own financial affairs gives the government a wide berth in deciding who can or cannot own a firearm for protection. It could (and probably has been) been argued that anyone on any assistance can't handle their financial affairs. Then the burden is on the citizen to take the USG to court to win back their constitutional right.

a reply to: network dude

The only thing Trump serves is as an inhibitor from achieving solutions to an existing problem that he inherited with his Presidency. I'm not blaming the shooting on him though.

a reply to: craterman

At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

originally posted by: aethertek
a reply to: DBCowboy

Well that will be fine for the blue states as we usually find the wherewithal to fund our schools & education systems but for the red states that rely on the welfare received in federal dollars from the blue that will only exacerbate the problems in those locals.

K~

when someone talks in blue vs. red like you do i know i am getting the business.

Here is my challenge to you. Only look at blue vs. red from a county level when you look at charts.
What you allocate is theft by demographics. Your only objective is forced ideology where 2 coastal cities rule by color of law.
Blue vs. red is a ruse to disenfranchise everyone who does not live in a major city and is DEPENDANT on government for survival.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: skunkape23
Letting kids spend hours playing video games where the main goal is to blow away as many as possible mixed with a coctail of pharmaceutical drugs could be a factor.
Just speculating.
A lack of education in gun safety could also be a factor.

Kids play violent video games ALL over the world yet mass shootings are only really a problem here. This isn't the 1990's stop blaming video games on violence.

Stop ignoring parts of the conversation that don't fit your #ing agenda. Or is this just political for you?

I'm not ignoring anything. The logic behind saying that video games cause violence in youth isn't sound since the rest of the world plays the same games we do and don't run into malls or schools and start shooting the place up.

If you want me to address this point further then you need to produce some statistics or studies that at the very LEAST establish a possible correlation between the two let alone a causation.

Heading out with the wife so I will not be replying again till later this evening or tomorrow some time.

I would also like to point out I am not against tightening things up, I just do not want a knee jerk reaction law that is typically badly worded and open to many different interpretations.

I say this as a gun owner that just found out he will be a dad this fall for the first time, so I want it done right if we need to tighten regulations, ok, but lets not over look everything else that could contribute to the problem.

My sisters youngest is on anti-depression meds, her therapist was very clear that mixing anti-depressants and weed could have bad side effects. (cause the kid was smoking weed to deal with her depression issues before she got to a doctor) How many kids get pilled without getting counseled about side effects.

What about parents plopping their kids in front of the TV instead of reading to them or spending time with them teaching them about growing up and becoming a man or woman, or right form wrong etc.

I think we have a laundry list of causes that should be looked at, and some of them stray into philosophy which is even harder to quantify.

It may sound tacky, but just slapping a new law alongside existing gun laws is similar to putting a band aid on a sucking chest wound, yes you tried to help but did we really accomplish anything.

a reply to: DrChandra

We cannot have a debate searching for real solutions until we all agree to be intellectually honest with each other. The media spins information to meet their political leanings as evidenced by the NBC article you referenced. One sentence gives the reason why the "Obama-era" regulation was rolled back.

The only one spinning anything is you by saying things like this:
"In my opinion, the real reason for Obama's "rule" (Dec. 2017) was so he could push through gun restrictions during the last days of his administration having failed to achieve it legislatively."

The article is devoid of opposing views which is a violation of the trust we place in journalists.

Did YOU read the whole article?

The National Rifle Association “applauded” Trump’s action. Chris Cox, NRA-ILA executive director, said the move “marks a new era for law-abiding gun owners, as we now have a president who respects and supports our arms.”

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: skunkape23
Letting kids spend hours playing video games where the main goal is to blow away as many as possible mixed with a coctail of pharmaceutical drugs could be a factor.
Just speculating.
A lack of education in gun safety could also be a factor.

Kids play violent video games ALL over the world yet mass shootings are only really a problem here. This isn't the 1990's stop blaming video games on violence.

It's really mind-boggling that a years long study was released a month ago that found no link between video games and violent behavior yet people ignore that to peddle some alarmist helicopter mom notion from 20 years ago.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Irishhaf

It's not about stopping all mass shootings. That is a physically impossible order to fulfill. It's about curbing the amount that happen and/or making them less dangerous overall.

For one thing, it is HIGHLY likely that the EO that Trump overturned earlier this year that prevented mentally disabled from getting guns could have been used to stop the most recent shooting down in Florida.
Florida shooting suspect bought gun legally, authorities say

The case of this kid's troubles pretty much shoots all the pro-gun talking points to #.

What did he overturn this year? Or are you referring to the one last year?

If it's the one from last year, how is it "highly likely" that it would have prevented this shooting? It added the names of people who had received federal assistance with their mental illness. The bill required Social Security to submit names of those with mental disabilities who had received benefits from the feds to the gun database.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: aethertek
a reply to: DBCowboy

Well that will be fine for the blue states as we usually find the wherewithal to fund our schools & education systems but for the red states that rely on the welfare received in federal dollars from the blue that will only exacerbate the problems in those locals.

K~

Let's make something real clear; I'm looking at real, viable solutions to the problems and you're pushing a politically driven agenda.

Local districts can raise property taxes, cut superintendent pays, do whatever they need to hire instructors to teach these skills obviously lacking.

You just want to push an agenda, piss on the Constitution and have a police-state.

Here's a viable solution, reinstate the assault weapons ban. Will it curtail ALL mass shootings? No!

Has it been shown to reduce the frequency and the totality of the deaths? Yes!

Of the top 34 mass causality event's in US History (8 or more dead):

12 happened prior to the ban (with 7 of those happening in the decade before).

20 have happened since the ban was done away with in 2004.

ONLY 2 OF THE TOP 34 MASS SHOOTINGS OCCURRED DURING THE ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN!

So most data can show you that the AW Ban actually DID help these events from occurring with less frequency and with less overall death. Would you be in favor of that?

originally posted by: kurthall
a reply to: Irishhaf



Well, lets see, this kid shot up a school, with a gun he bought legelaly. Paddock bought the guns he used in the Vegas shooting, legaly, the Batman CO shooter bought his guns legaly,

There are almost 100 people dead just in those three, instances all killed by legal guns. In fact as of 2015 80% of all mass shootings were done with LEGAL guns.www.nbcnews.com...



Now look, this is just crazy 80% of shootings are done with legaly obtained weapons. Also the weapons used were not the kind that you keep in your home because you want protection. These wepons were meant to KILL AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE......


The way gun controll is now, IS NOT WORKING....a 19 year old should not be able to buy a semi automatic meant to kill humans. 18 school shootings already this year.

I don't care what you people say, unless you have a child that you send to school, you have no idea what something like this is really like. How do you think our children feel? Mine are all grown up now, but I know what its like and I am glad they are.

Some of you are so bad at math and logic that you are easily swayed by bias news articles throwing out fancy statistics to sensationalize tragedies to get an agenda passed. The data in the article can be easily picked apart if you took time to actually read it...

From the article:

Eighty-two percent of weapons involved in mass shootings over the last three decades have been bought legally, according to a database compiled by Mother Jones magazine that defines a mass shooting as taking the lives of at least four people in a public place. Using that criteria, Mother Jones found 73 mass shootings since 1982.

Read that paragraph really slow. 73 mass shootings since 1982 where four or more have been killed. The article was written in 2015. So we are talking about 73 shootings committed over 33 years. In other words, their are 2.21 mass shootings per year according the Mother Jones where more than 4 people are killed. Let that marinate a little bit.

As disgusting and tragic as any of these shootings are; it is not and never been a significant problem in the context of gun violence which is far and away mostly gang/criminal related and highly concentrated in black and hispanic communities.

We haven't even gotten into the fact that the supposed ar-15 and assault weapons barely show up as a rounding error in gun death statistics. More people are literally beaten to death with hands/feet every year than killed with rifles of any kind.

This is why I can't take any of you gun grabbers seriously because you choose to ignore basic facts and logic when discussing the issue. I agree there are things that can be done, but when one side won't even educate themselves with basic facts, you cannot have a logical and rational debate to come up with mutually agreeable solutions.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: aethertek
a reply to: DBCowboy

Well that will be fine for the blue states as we usually find the wherewithal to fund our schools & education systems but for the red states that rely on the welfare received in federal dollars from the blue that will only exacerbate the problems in those locals.

K~

Let's make something real clear; I'm looking at real, viable solutions to the problems and you're pushing a politically driven agenda.

Local districts can raise property taxes, cut superintendent pays, do whatever they need to hire instructors to teach these skills obviously lacking.

You just want to push an agenda, piss on the Constitution and have a police-state.

Wow, drama queen much?

You want real solutions to humanities problems, stop breeding like animals.
The one common denominator for all of theses mass murderers is their low intelligence quotient, seriously look at that genetic reject, tell me there isn't some inbreeding there.

K~
K~

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: kurthall
a reply to: Irishhaf



Well, lets see, this kid shot up a school, with a gun he bought legelaly. Paddock bought the guns he used in the Vegas shooting, legaly, the Batman CO shooter bought his guns legaly,

There are almost 100 people dead just in those three, instances all killed by legal guns. In fact as of 2015 80% of all mass shootings were done with LEGAL guns.www.nbcnews.com...



Now look, this is just crazy 80% of shootings are done with legaly obtained weapons. Also the weapons used were not the kind that you keep in your home because you want protection. These wepons were meant to KILL AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE......


The way gun controll is now, IS NOT WORKING....a 19 year old should not be able to buy a semi automatic meant to kill humans. 18 school shootings already this year.

I don't care what you people say, unless you have a child that you send to school, you have no idea what something like this is really like. How do you think our children feel? Mine are all grown up now, but I know what its like and I am glad they are.

Some of you are so bad at math and logic that you are easily swayed by bias news articles throwing out fancy statistics to sensationalize tragedies to get an agenda passed. The data in the article can be easily picked apart if you took time to actually read it...

From the article:

Eighty-two percent of weapons involved in mass shootings over the last three decades have been bought legally, according to a database compiled by Mother Jones magazine that defines a mass shooting as taking the lives of at least four people in a public place. Using that criteria, Mother Jones found 73 mass shootings since 1982.

As disgusting and tragic as any of these shootings are; it is not and never been a significant problem in the context of gun violence which is far and away mostly gang/criminal related and highly concentrated in black and hispanic communities.

We've never even had a person use their shoe as a bomb in an aircraft (we have had ONE failed attempt).

Any idea what happened after that failed attempt? The one time out of millions upon millions of flights?

So as microscopic as you purport the "gun problem" in the US to be, it dwarfs the problem of shoe bombs. Yet for some reason legislation was passed IMMEDIATELY to curtail a problem that has never occurred.

a reply to: GeechQuestInfo

So most data can show you that the AW Ban actually DID help these events from occurring with less frequency and with less overall death. Would you be in favor of that?

Most of the data actually shows little to no statistical impact was found that could be tied to the ban.

Why? Well, because the ban affected an incredibly small percentage of weapons used during crime. Even the Brady Center, which has a chubby for any and everything that curtails gun rights, was only able to attribute a statistically insignificant reduction in crimes committed with assault rifles.

Pretty much everybody else that did studies on the ban's effectiveness was left unimpressed.