Now your argument has come unglued (as I knew it would).

TriJets wrote:

Guns aren't useful for riots? Ask Kyle Rittenhouse about that.

You are aware that Kyle Rittenhouse was the problem that day in Milwaukee aren't you?
There was no threat to life from anyone other than him.

TriJets wrote:

If you don't want a gun, don't buy one. You can make your own decision, just like all other law-abiding citizens can make their own. Ignoring reality and trying to minimize the dangerous world that we live in does not make your argument somehow right.

"If you don't want a gun, don't buy one." is not an argument.

The argument you need to rebut is here:

So we are left with the fact that more guns mean 'more guns'; criminals will have more guns, suicidal people will have more access to guns, children will have access to guns, the mentally ill will have more access to guns, drunks will have more access to guns, and individuals in the throes of anger will have more access to guns. Guns provide permanent solutions for temporary problems.

The frontier days are over, guns are no solution for crime, thinking of overthrowing the government is seditious, and guns are no substitute for manhood.
We as a nation and as individuals are better off with as few of them around as possible.

Guns are a red herring.

Six freaking pages of nothing but specious gun control arguments mixed in with some comments about mental health (which has some validity.

But I posit this with you all: look at the life of Salvador Ramos.

Fatherless. Was bullied in school. Cut himself. Lacked a strong male role model in his life. Egged cars and shot BB guns at people.

It's just heartbreaking, really. The issue at play here is FAR deeper than merely the instrument he chose. This is a deeper societal issue and it's also FAR more uncomfortable to discuss. But we as a society have to address them and stop blaming the wrong things when the real answer is broader, deeper, and more complex.

AirWorthy99 wrote:

There is a mental health crisis in this country, which government banning things won't help.

While I agree with the reasoning leanding to the part of your conclusion I don't understand the second part.

AFAIK nearly nobody wants a ban, just some form of regulation.
And I'd find a sensible move to start making it more difficult for people suffering from mental health to get access to guns while doing something about the mental health crisis, which is a much more long term action.
That's not two exclusive actions, both can be performed at the same time and participate achieving the same goal.

ObadiahPlainman wrote:

Guns are a red herring.
Six freaking pages of nothing but specious gun control arguments mixed in with some comments about mental health (which has some validity.
But I posit this with you all: look at the life of Salvador Ramos.
Fatherless. Was bullied in school. Cut himself. Lacked a strong male role model in his life. Egged cars and shot BB guns at people.
It's just heartbreaking, really. The issue at play here is FAR deeper than merely the instrument he chose. This is a deeper societal issue and it's also FAR more uncomfortable to discuss. But we as a society have to address them and stop blaming the wrong things when the real answer is broader, deeper, and more complex.

Guns are the central issue here. People in the circumstance Ramos found himself are going to occur in our society (as opposed to some imaginary utopian society) but without access to guns, and without a national focus on "guns" "guns" "guns", this incident would never have happened.

ObadiahPlainman wrote:

Guns are a red herring.

They are not.

On most other countries Salvador Ramos might have been a weirdo, a problematic kid, a violent guy, etc.

He would most likely not been able to get his hands on an actual gun.

People refer to stopping criminals and the insane having guns.

Could the police do spot checks on felons within 2A.

Ditto, could people certified as mentally unstable be denied guns within 2A.

Vintage wrote:

Now your argument has come unglued (as I knew it would).

TriJets wrote:

Guns aren't useful for riots? Ask Kyle Rittenhouse about that.

You are aware that Kyle Rittenhouse was the problem that day in Milwaukee aren't you?
There was no threat to life from anyone other than him.

TriJets wrote:

If you don't want a gun, don't buy one. You can make your own decision, just like all other law-abiding citizens can make their own. Ignoring reality and trying to minimize the dangerous world that we live in does not make your argument somehow right.

"If you don't want a gun, don't buy one." is not an argument.

The argument you need to rebut is here:

So we are left with the fact that more guns mean 'more guns'; criminals will have more guns, suicidal people will have more access to guns, children will have access to guns, the mentally ill will have more access to guns, drunks will have more access to guns, and individuals in the throes of anger will have more access to guns. Guns provide permanent solutions for temporary problems.

The frontier days are over, guns are no solution for crime, thinking of overthrowing the government is seditious, and guns are no substitute for manhood.
We as a nation and as individuals are better off with as few of them around as possible.

No offense, but I don't take my orders from you. You've consistently simply ignored facts that run counter to your own views. You don't get to set the terms of this debate, just like you don't get to tell Americans how they can defend themselves.

bennett123 wrote:

People refer to stopping criminals and the insane having guns.

Could the police do spot checks on felons within 2A.

Ditto, could people certified as mentally unstable be denied guns within 2A.

Spot checks would be more an issue of the fourth amendment than the second, as far as I know. There's been some work on "red flag" laws state-by-state, but IDK what the courts have had to say about them, and everything kind of has to line up perfectly to actually stop a mass shooting with one.

An idea for a compromise that could reduce the likelihood that something like this happens in the future.

18-20 year olds can buy shotguns. 21+ year olds can buy handguns per normal process. If someone wants an "AR" style rifle (the kind used in so many of these massacres), they must be 21 and have two character witnesses attest to their fitness to own such a weapon. Each person can only be a character witness for two other people per year (this would prevent people from circumventing the system by being a character witness to literally everyone). Character witnesses must be non-criminals and must not prohibited from owning a firearm themselves.

Once the AR is purchased it is legally tied to its owner and cannot be sold or transferred unless the potential buyer goes through the same process.

99.9% of people would have no trouble in such system, but obvious nutjobs would likely have a difficult time finding two rational people to sign for them.

ObadiahPlainman wrote:

Guns are a red herring.

Six freaking pages of nothing but specious gun control arguments mixed in with some comments about mental health (which has some validity.

But I posit this with you all: look at the life of Salvador Ramos.

Fatherless. Was bullied in school. Cut himself. Lacked a strong male role model in his life. Egged cars and shot BB guns at people.

It's just heartbreaking, really. The issue at play here is FAR deeper than merely the instrument he chose. This is a deeper societal issue and it's also FAR more uncomfortable to discuss. But we as a society have to address them and stop blaming the wrong things when the real answer is broader, deeper, and more complex.

You may certainly argue the point social services (such as they exist) failed to catch this kid, and in most developed countries that argument would be accepted. I do tear that in Texas, or indeed the US, that’s not the case. However, and this is much more important, kids like this exists all over the world and in frighteningly big numbers. But the difference between the US and the rest of the developed world is, that an 18-year old can’t just walk into a shop and buy a firearm. This very possibility enables deeply troubled kids to reach out in the most horrific of ways.

It’s easily fixed, but neither the popular nor the political will to do so exists. So, Ts&Ps it is; just another lap onboard the perpetual merry-go-round of meaningless death.

The gunman who massacred 19 children and two teachers at an elementary school in Texas warned in online messages sent minutes before the attack that he had shot his grandmother and was going to shoot up a school, the governor said Wednesday.

Democrat Beto O’Rourke, who is running against Abbott for governor, interrupted Wednesday’s news conference, calling the tragedy “predictable.” Pointing his finger at Abbott, he said: “This is on you until you choose to do something different. This will continue to happen.” O’Rourke was escorted out as some in the room yelled at him, with Uvalde Mayor Don McLaughlin calling Beto a “sick son of a bitch.”

https://apnews.com/article/uvalde-texas ... 83df6e4683

TriJets wrote:

No offense, but I don't take my orders from you. You've consistently simply ignored facts that run counter to your own views. You don't get to set the terms of this debate, just like you don't get to tell Americans how they can defend themselves.

You are aware that Kyle Rittenhouse was the problem that day in Milwaukee aren't you?
There was no threat to life from anyone other than him.

Also, once again, "If you don't want a gun, don't buy one" is not an argument.

Again: the argument you need to rebut:

So we are left with the fact that more guns mean 'more guns'; criminals will have more guns, suicidal people will have more access to guns, children will have access to guns, the mentally ill will have more access to guns, drunks will have more access to guns, and individuals in the throes of anger will have more access to guns. Guns provide permanent solutions for temporary problems.

The frontier days are over, guns are no solution for crime, thinking of overthrowing the government is seditious, and guns are no substitute for manhood.
We as a nation and as individuals are better off with as few of them around as possible.

Vintage wrote:

Guns are the central issue here. People in the circumstance Ramos found himself are going to occur in our society (as opposed to some imaginary utopian society) but without access to guns, and without a national focus on "guns" "guns" "guns", this incident would never have happened.

The Govt. could ban all movies and video games and TV shows with guns, and instruments of death in them.

Then Peace would reign.

Imagine...

B777LRF wrote:

ObadiahPlainman wrote:

Guns are a red herring.

Six freaking pages of nothing but specious gun control arguments mixed in with some comments about mental health (which has some validity.

But I posit this with you all: look at the life of Salvador Ramos.

Fatherless. Was bullied in school. Cut himself. Lacked a strong male role model in his life. Egged cars and shot BB guns at people.

It's just heartbreaking, really. The issue at play here is FAR deeper than merely the instrument he chose. This is a deeper societal issue and it's also FAR more uncomfortable to discuss. But we as a society have to address them and stop blaming the wrong things when the real answer is broader, deeper, and more complex.

You may certainly argue the point social services (such as they exist) failed to catch this kid, and in most developed countries that argument would be accepted. I do tear that in Texas, or indeed the US, that’s not the case. However, and this is much more important, kids like this exists all over the world and in frighteningly big numbers. But the difference between the US and the rest of the developed world is, that an 18-year old can’t just walk into a shop and buy a firearm. This very possibility enables deeply troubled kids to reach out in the most horrific of ways.

It’s easily fixed, but neither the popular nor the political will to do so exists. So, Ts&Ps it is; just another lap onboard the perpetual merry-go-round of meaningless death.

I have bad news for you. In Chicago, Baltimore and other US cities, children much younger than Ramos, get guns, not bought legally but obtained illegally. They kill among themselves every day.

Reason you may not know is because it doesn't make the news. https://abc7chicago.com/chicago-shootin ... /11852058/

South of the border, this is more rampant.

So no, not all child killers legally buy guns to kill. Ramos obtained his gun legally but the vast murders by other teens, are mostly done by illegal guns and not even having legal means to carry one.

It may seem that Ramos even broke some laws in Texas, but that is still to be determined.

Laws are just some text written for bad people. They don't care, they will kill with or without them.

TriJets wrote:

An idea for a compromise that could reduce the likelihood that something like this happens in the future.

18-20 year olds can buy shotguns. 21+ year olds can buy handguns per normal process. If someone wants an "AR" style rifle (the kind used in so many of these massacres), they must be 21 and have two character witnesses attest to their fitness to own such a weapon. Each person can only be a character witness for two other people per year (this would prevent people from circumventing the system by being a character witness to literally everyone). Character witnesses must be non-criminals and must not prohibited from owning a firearm themselves.

Once the AR is purchased it is legally tied to its owner and cannot be sold or transferred unless the potential buyer goes through the same process.

99.9% of people would have no trouble in such system, but obvious nutjobs would likely have a difficult time finding two rational people to sign for them.

It's a solid basis for discussion. I think some gun owners might be uncomfortable with a system that relies heavily on the personal testimony of a few individuals, just from other peoples' posts I've read elsewhere about e.g. permits from the sheriff's office having favoritism issues. You'd also have to be careful with the phrasing of it to catch the actual weapons you're looking for - as far as I can tell, the 1994 assault weapons ban left precisely 0 people happy for this reason. There's also enough AR-type weapons already in circulation that you'd need to find a way to roll them into the system. But again, it's a decent starting point to think over.

Vintage wrote:

TriJets wrote:

No offense, but I don't take my orders from you. You've consistently simply ignored facts that run counter to your own views. You don't get to set the terms of this debate, just like you don't get to tell Americans how they can defend themselves.

You are aware that Kyle Rittenhouse was the problem that day in Milwaukee aren't you?
There was no threat to life from anyone other than him.

Also, once again, "If you don't want a gun, don't buy one" is not an argument.

Again: the argument you need to rebut:

So we are left with the fact that more guns mean 'more guns'; criminals will have more guns, suicidal people will have more access to guns, children will have access to guns, the mentally ill will have more access to guns, drunks will have more access to guns, and individuals in the throes of anger will have more access to guns. Guns provide permanent solutions for temporary problems.

The frontier days are over, guns are no solution for crime, thinking of overthrowing the government is seditious, and guns are no substitute for manhood.
We as a nation and as individuals are better off with as few of them around as possible.

Kyle Rittenhouse was one of many problems in Kenosha that day, but at at the end of the day it was proven in a court of law that he used his weapon to legally defend himself.

With regard to your other argument, I've rebutted your points numerous times and you simply claim "nuh uh" and ignore them. So, no sense continuing on here with you.

Newark727 wrote:

TriJets wrote:

An idea for a compromise that could reduce the likelihood that something like this happens in the future.

18-20 year olds can buy shotguns. 21+ year olds can buy handguns per normal process. If someone wants an "AR" style rifle (the kind used in so many of these massacres), they must be 21 and have two character witnesses attest to their fitness to own such a weapon. Each person can only be a character witness for two other people per year (this would prevent people from circumventing the system by being a character witness to literally everyone). Character witnesses must be non-criminals and must not prohibited from owning a firearm themselves.

Once the AR is purchased it is legally tied to its owner and cannot be sold or transferred unless the potential buyer goes through the same process.

99.9% of people would have no trouble in such system, but obvious nutjobs would likely have a difficult time finding two rational people to sign for them.

It's a solid basis for discussion. I think some gun owners might be uncomfortable with a system that relies heavily on the personal testimony of a few individuals, just from other peoples' posts I've read elsewhere about e.g. permits from the sheriff's office having favoritism issues. You'd also have to be careful with the phrasing of it to catch the actual weapons you're looking for - as far as I can tell, the 1994 assault weapons ban left precisely 0 people happy for this reason. There's also enough AR-type weapons already in circulation that you'd need to find a way to roll them into the system. But again, it's a decent starting point to think over.

Thanks. The problem is that both sides of this debate have to learn to be happy with being unhappy....instead of trying to "win" both sides need to figure out what they can reasonably give up so they can meet somewhere in the middle. It is a very complex issue but doing nothing should no longer be an option.

Yet, it is the sad truth.
This won’t stop until someone takes the guns away from «the good guys».
You see, the bad guys also arm themselves because they think they have to.
If you don’t have a gun, they won’t bring a gun to rob your house either.

So it’s basically a pretty simple matrix.
If your house is getting robbed, and everyone has guns

The US model(tm):
50% chance you are dead and robbed, the bad guy might go to prison for life or have an execution.
50% The bad guy is dead and you get to live with having killed someone.

The Civilized World’s model:
50% chance you get robbed(but you are insured, aren’t you?)
50% you don’t

TriJets wrote:

Vintage wrote:

Now your argument has come unglued (as I knew it would).

TriJets wrote:

Guns aren't useful for riots? Ask Kyle Rittenhouse about that.

You are aware that Kyle Rittenhouse was the problem that day in Milwaukee aren't you?
There was no threat to life from anyone other than him.

TriJets wrote:

If you don't want a gun, don't buy one. You can make your own decision, just like all other law-abiding citizens can make their own. Ignoring reality and trying to minimize the dangerous world that we live in does not make your argument somehow right.

"If you don't want a gun, don't buy one." is not an argument.

The argument you need to rebut is here:

So we are left with the fact that more guns mean 'more guns'; criminals will have more guns, suicidal people will have more access to guns, children will have access to guns, the mentally ill will have more access to guns, drunks will have more access to guns, and individuals in the throes of anger will have more access to guns. Guns provide permanent solutions for temporary problems.

The frontier days are over, guns are no solution for crime, thinking of overthrowing the government is seditious, and guns are no substitute for manhood.
We as a nation and as individuals are better off with as few of them around as possible.

No offense, but I don't take my orders from you. You've consistently simply ignored facts that run counter to your own views. You don't get to set the terms of this debate, just like you don't get to tell Americans how they can defend themselves.

M564038 wrote:

Yet, it is the sad truth.
This won’t stop until someone takes the guns away from «the good guys».
You see, the bad guys also arm themselves because they think they have to.
If you don’t have a gun, they won’t bring a gun to rob your house either.

So it’s basically a pretty simple matrix.
If your house is getting robbed, and everyone has guns

The US model(tm):
50% chance you are dead and robbed, the bad guy might go to prison for life or have an execution.
50% The bad guy is dead and you get to live with having killed someone.

The Civilized World’s model:
50% chance you get robbed(but you are insured, aren’t you?)
50% you don’t

TriJets wrote:

Vintage wrote:

Now your argument has come unglued (as I knew it would).

You are aware that Kyle Rittenhouse was the problem that day in Milwaukee aren't you?
There was no threat to life from anyone other than him.


"If you don't want a gun, don't buy one." is not an argument.

The argument you need to rebut is here:

No offense, but I don't take my orders from you. You've consistently simply ignored facts that run counter to your own views. You don't get to set the terms of this debate, just like you don't get to tell Americans how they can defend themselves.

Pretty bold to assume that the bad guys will willingly give up their guns for no reason. I don't think that's a logical argument. I'd argue that if law abiding citizens were disarmed, crime would only increase as well-armed criminals would know that they would now face zero resistance and could do as they pleased.

TriJets wrote:

Kyle Rittenhouse was one of many problems in Kenosha that day, but at at the end of the day it was proven in a court of law that he used his weapon to legally defend himself.

Rittenhouse was found not guilty of murder, that doesn't change the fact that he, and he alone, was the only threat to life that day.

TriJets wrote:

With regard to your other argument, I've rebutted your points numerous times and you simply claim "nuh uh" and ignore them. So, no sense continuing on here with you.

You have posted nothing to rebut, the fact that "If you don't want a gun, don't buy one" is not an argument.

You have also posted nothing to rebut:

We are left with the fact that more guns mean 'more guns'; criminals will have more guns, suicidal people will have more access to guns, children will have access to guns, the mentally ill will have more access to guns, drunks will have more access to guns, and individuals in the throes of anger will have more access to guns. Guns provide permanent solutions for temporary problems. The frontier days are over, guns are no solution for crime, thinking of overthrowing the government is seditious, and guns are no substitute for manhood. We as a nation and as individuals are better off with as few of them around as possible.

But it is not bold.
We have criminology, psychology, actual professionals and experts, decades of practice, statistics and studies from the various models and solutions used in the entire world. The rest of the western world has elected to do this differently, and have a far greater success with it.
Isn’t it time you guys listened?

Why is it more important to have guns than to be safe?

TriJets wrote:

M564038 wrote:

Yet, it is the sad truth.
This won’t stop until someone takes the guns away from «the good guys».
You see, the bad guys also arm themselves because they think they have to.
If you don’t have a gun, they won’t bring a gun to rob your house either.

So it’s basically a pretty simple matrix.
If your house is getting robbed, and everyone has guns

The US model(tm):
50% chance you are dead and robbed, the bad guy might go to prison for life or have an execution.
50% The bad guy is dead and you get to live with having killed someone.

The Civilized World’s model:
50% chance you get robbed(but you are insured, aren’t you?)
50% you don’t

TriJets wrote:

No offense, but I don't take my orders from you. You've consistently simply ignored facts that run counter to your own views. You don't get to set the terms of this debate, just like you don't get to tell Americans how they can defend themselves.

Pretty bold to assume that the bad guys will willingly give up their guns for no reason. I don't think that's a logical argument. I'd argue that if law abiding citizens were disarmed, crime would only increase as well-armed criminals would know that they would now face zero resistance and could do as they pleased.

TriJets wrote:

Pretty bold to assume that the bad guys will willingly give up their guns for no reason. I don't think that's a logical argument. I'd argue that if law abiding citizens were disarmed, crime would only increase as well-armed criminals would know that they would now face zero resistance and could do as they pleased.

Ehh, "bad guy" isn't a Dungeons and Dragons character class, it's a series of decisions - a lot of which we can't influence, but some of which we can. If it takes longer, or costs more, to get a weapon, some people aren't going to bother with one. If the money from selling your gun in a police buy back is easier, better money than robbing a convenience store with it, some people are going to do that.

TriJets wrote:

That's exactly why it is so hard to compare gun crime/gun ownership in places like the UK with places like the USA. The criminals already have weapons here....there are more guns in the US than there are people. The tables are turned....law-abiding citizens are armed because they know that criminals are already armed. If you want to convince law-abiding citizens to give up their arms, disarm the criminals first.

Thank you for proving my point.

Other nations have moved from lax gun laws to where they are now and have thrived. It seem most Americans aren't even willing to discuss what steps might be taken to begin that journey. It doesn't sound like the home of the brave to me.

What does another 20 dead kids matter? Thoughts and prayers.

TriJets wrote:

Pretty bold to assume that the bad guys will willingly give up their guns for no reason. I don't think that's a logical argument. I'd argue that if law abiding citizens were disarmed, crime would only increase as well-armed criminals would know that they would now face zero resistance and could do as they pleased.

"Bad guys" will give up their guns when they understand that being caught with a gun with any kind of a prior gets them five years in prison the first time. The ones who don't give them up will have them taken away soon enough.

Your claim that "crime would only increase as well-armed criminals would know that they would now face zero resistance and could do as they pleased" is absurd. For openers, "the cliche "well-armed criminals" is hyperbole. And if there were such a thing in anything other than trivial numbers, all the laws of the nation still apply and the use of a gun in a crime after gun ownership is severely curtailed should and would bring a decade in prison. Guns themselves have little deterrence on crime. It they did the US would currently be nearly crime free.

M564038 wrote:

But it is not bold.
We have criminology, psychology, actual professionals and experts, decades of practice, statistics and studies from the various models and solutions used in the entire world. The rest of the western world has elected to do this differently, and have a far greater success with it.
Isn’t it time you guys listened?

Why is it more important to have guns than to be safe?

TriJets wrote:

M564038 wrote:

Yet, it is the sad truth.
This won’t stop until someone takes the guns away from «the good guys».
You see, the bad guys also arm themselves because they think they have to.
If you don’t have a gun, they won’t bring a gun to rob your house either.

So it’s basically a pretty simple matrix.
If your house is getting robbed, and everyone has guns

The US model(tm):
50% chance you are dead and robbed, the bad guy might go to prison for life or have an execution.
50% The bad guy is dead and you get to live with having killed someone.

The Civilized World’s model:
50% chance you get robbed(but you are insured, aren’t you?)
50% you don’t

Pretty bold to assume that the bad guys will willingly give up their guns for no reason. I don't think that's a logical argument. I'd argue that if law abiding citizens were disarmed, crime would only increase as well-armed criminals would know that they would now face zero resistance and could do as they pleased.

Indeed, we have decades of knowledge from within the United States showing that criminals use firearms very often in the commission of crimes. There's no reason that would suddenly change if the criminals found that their victims were now defenseless.

Newark727 wrote:

TriJets wrote:

Pretty bold to assume that the bad guys will willingly give up their guns for no reason. I don't think that's a logical argument. I'd argue that if law abiding citizens were disarmed, crime would only increase as well-armed criminals would know that they would now face zero resistance and could do as they pleased.

Ehh, "bad guy" isn't a Dungeons and Dragons character class, it's a series of decisions - a lot of which we can't influence, but some of which we can. If it takes longer, or costs more, to get a weapon, some people aren't going to bother with one. If the money from selling your gun in a police buy back is easier, better money than robbing a convenience store with it, some people are going to do that.

With over 300 million firearms (and counting) in circulation in the US, there's not much that can be done to make it harder for criminals to acquire one.

TriJets wrote:

Indeed, we have decades of knowledge from within the United States showing that criminals use firearms very often in the commission of crimes. There's no reason that would suddenly change if the criminals found that their victims were now defenseless.

You are intentionally ignoring the blatantly obvious fact that if 90% of guns are removed from society 99% of the guns would be removed from the hands of criminals.

Vintage wrote:

TriJets wrote:

Pretty bold to assume that the bad guys will willingly give up their guns for no reason. I don't think that's a logical argument. I'd argue that if law abiding citizens were disarmed, crime would only increase as well-armed criminals would know that they would now face zero resistance and could do as they pleased.

"Bad guys" will give up their guns when they understand that being caught with a gun with any kind of a prior gets them five years in prison the first time. The ones who don't give them up will have them taken away soon enough.

Your claim that "crime would only increase as well-armed criminals would know that they would now face zero resistance and could do as they pleased" is absurd. For openers, "the cliche "well-armed criminals" is hyperbole. And if there were such a thing in anything other than trivial numbers, all the laws of the nation still apply and the use of a gun in a crime after gun ownership is severely curtailed should and would bring a decade in prison. Guns themselves have little deterrence on crime. It they did the US would currently be nearly crime free.

If that were the case, why not just place a mandatory minimum 5 year sentence on all gun crime and see if gun homicides plummet? No need to disarm law abiding citizens in that case.

TriJets wrote:

If that were the case, why not just place a mandatory minimum 5 year sentence on all gun crime and see if gun homicides plummet? No need to disarm law abiding citizens in that case.

I'd go for that. But what would that do to stop things like school shootings, acts of rage, suicides, or children gaining access to guns?

While you and your friends bandy about the 20,000 murdered by guns every year, you ignore that the number of deaths from guns is more than 40,000 every year, and the number of injuries is 115,000 every year.

Vintage wrote:

TriJets wrote:

If that were the case, why not just place a mandatory minimum 5 year sentence on all gun crime and see if gun homicides plummet? No need to disarm law abiding citizens in that case.

I'd go for that. But what would that do to stop things like school shootings, acts of rage, suicides, or children gaining access to guns?

While you and your friends bandy about the 20,000 murdered by guns every year, you ignore that the number of deaths from guns is more than 40,000 every year, and the number of injuries is 115,000 every year.

Our first thing is accepting that the number will never be zero. Bad things will always happen in life. But, to your point....safe storage laws to keep guns out of the hands of kids and red flag laws to help keep guns away from the insane, for starters.

scbriml wrote:

TriJets wrote:

That's exactly why it is so hard to compare gun crime/gun ownership in places like the UK with places like the USA. The criminals already have weapons here....there are more guns in the US than there are people. The tables are turned....law-abiding citizens are armed because they know that criminals are already armed. If you want to convince law-abiding citizens to give up their arms, disarm the criminals first.

Thank you for proving my point.

Other nations have moved from lax gun laws to where they are now and have thrived. It seem most Americans aren't even willing to discuss what steps might be taken to begin that journey. It doesn't sound like the home of the brave to me.

What does another 20 dead kids matter? Thoughts and prayers.

I wouldn’t say most. There are lot of Americas that that know the truth of the matter when it comes to higher number of gun violence in comparison to other places in the world. The problem is getting change enacted is difficult because of those who have the ability to enact change will not go against gun lobbyists which is very powerful….

So here we are.. As a American, I’ve damn near given up hope for change in my lifetime because we are too politically split on this matter to see the real impact it is having on our society here in America.

DIRECTFLT wrote:

The gunman who massacred 19 children and two teachers at an elementary school in Texas warned in online messages sent minutes before the attack that he had shot his grandmother and was going to shoot up a school, the governor said Wednesday.

Democrat Beto O’Rourke, who is running against Abbott for governor, interrupted Wednesday’s news conference, calling the tragedy “predictable.” Pointing his finger at Abbott, he said: “This is on you until you choose to do something different. This will continue to happen.” O’Rourke was escorted out as some in the room yelled at him, with Uvalde Mayor Don McLaughlin calling Beto a “sick son of a bitch.”

https://apnews.com/article/uvalde-texas ... 83df6e4683

Ugly for Abbott, Beto and the mayor. Adults acting immature in serious circumstances are part of why we have such deep societal malaise.

TriJets wrote:

Vintage wrote:

TriJets wrote:

If that were the case, why not just place a mandatory minimum 5 year sentence on all gun crime and see if gun homicides plummet? No need to disarm law abiding citizens in that case.

I'd go for that. But what would that do to stop things like school shootings, acts of rage, suicides, or children gaining access to guns?

While you and your friends bandy about the 20,000 murdered by guns every year, you ignore that the number of deaths from guns is more than 40,000 every year, and the number of injuries is 115,000 every year.

Our first thing is accepting that the number will never be zero. Bad things will always happen in life. But, to your point....safe storage laws to keep guns out of the hands of kids and red flag laws to help keep guns away from the insane, for starters.

How will such laws be enforced? Home inspections?

You place way too much confidence in jail-time as a deterrence. As I said, there are others that has already solved these issues. Why don’t you start listening instead of more of the same old mediaevel solutions we KNOW aren’t the best ones.

To answer your other point, which I also did before you made it, «the bad guys» also don’t want uneccesary blood-shed. They aren’t robbing houses out of bloodlust. They are robbing houses to get valuables and money. De-escalate it, and reform your prison-system to reduce recidivism. That can also be done successfully, you see.

TriJets wrote:

Vintage wrote:

TriJets wrote:

Pretty bold to assume that the bad guys will willingly give up their guns for no reason. I don't think that's a logical argument. I'd argue that if law abiding citizens were disarmed, crime would only increase as well-armed criminals would know that they would now face zero resistance and could do as they pleased.

"Bad guys" will give up their guns when they understand that being caught with a gun with any kind of a prior gets them five years in prison the first time. The ones who don't give them up will have them taken away soon enough.

Your claim that "crime would only increase as well-armed criminals would know that they would now face zero resistance and could do as they pleased" is absurd. For openers, "the cliche "well-armed criminals" is hyperbole. And if there were such a thing in anything other than trivial numbers, all the laws of the nation still apply and the use of a gun in a crime after gun ownership is severely curtailed should and would bring a decade in prison. Guns themselves have little deterrence on crime. It they did the US would currently be nearly crime free.

If that were the case, why not just place a mandatory minimum 5 year sentence on all gun crime and see if gun homicides plummet? No need to disarm law abiding citizens in that case.

ACDC8 wrote:

Speaking of Cruz:

As 14 students and a teacher were shot dead at a Texas elementary school, the Republican senator tried to demonize Democrats, saying they’d be coming after guns.

When a mass shooting happens, Cruz told reporters, “You see politicians try to politicize it,” he said. “You see Democrats and a lot of folks in the media whose immediate solution is to try to restrict the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens.”

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/nation ... story.html

Cruz is part of the problem, just like all the other radicalized politicians crawling to the Trumpers, the NRA and the so called evangelicals. These days the GOP stands for Guns Over Principals

ObadiahPlainman wrote:

Guns are a red herring.

Six freaking pages of nothing but specious gun control arguments mixed in with some comments about mental health (which has some validity.

But I posit this with you all: look at the life of Salvador Ramos.

Fatherless. Was bullied in school. Cut himself. Lacked a strong male role model in his life. Egged cars and shot BB guns at people.

It's just heartbreaking, really. The issue at play here is FAR deeper than merely the instrument he chose. This is a deeper societal issue and it's also FAR more uncomfortable to discuss. But we as a society have to address them and stop blaming the wrong things when the real answer is broader, deeper, and more complex.

LOL sure. Whatever you need to tell yourself.

But here have a gun! Have two.

Ken777 wrote:

ACDC8 wrote:

Speaking of Cruz:

As 14 students and a teacher were shot dead at a Texas elementary school, the Republican senator tried to demonize Democrats, saying they’d be coming after guns.

When a mass shooting happens, Cruz told reporters, “You see politicians try to politicize it,” he said. “You see Democrats and a lot of folks in the media whose immediate solution is to try to restrict the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens.”

https://www.nydailynews.com/news/nation ... story.html

Cruz is part of the problem, just like all the other radicalized politicians crawling to the Trumpers, the NRA and the so called evangelicals. These days the GOP stands for Guns Over Principals

I honestly can't think of one sing life the pro life crowd is pro.

They are truly the most violent, vengeful animals on the planet.

M564038 wrote:

You place way too much confidence in jail-time as a deterrence. As I said, there are others that has already solved these issues. Why don’t you start listening instead of more of the same old mediaevel solutions we KNOW aren’t the best ones.

Why don't you start listening?

And BTW how do you plan to encourage those leaning towards crime to surrender their guns and discourage them from obtaining new ones?

Let's hear the plan.

Aaron747 wrote:

TriJets wrote:

Vintage wrote:

I'd go for that. But what would that do to stop things like school shootings, acts of rage, suicides, or children gaining access to guns?

While you and your friends bandy about the 20,000 murdered by guns every year, you ignore that the number of deaths from guns is more than 40,000 every year, and the number of injuries is 115,000 every year.

Our first thing is accepting that the number will never be zero. Bad things will always happen in life. But, to your point....safe storage laws to keep guns out of the hands of kids and red flag laws to help keep guns away from the insane, for starters.

How will such laws be enforced? Home inspections?

I don't see that being realistic, due to the 4th amendment. Unfortunately it would be a long process involving negligent parents being locked up for violations of the laws that were discovered due to mishaps or other issues, and then hopefully other parents learning from their poor example.

Maybe there should be a law passed stating that every single firearm sold needs to come with a free trigger lock.

TriJets wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

TriJets wrote:

Our first thing is accepting that the number will never be zero. Bad things will always happen in life. But, to your point....safe storage laws to keep guns out of the hands of kids and red flag laws to help keep guns away from the insane, for starters.

How will such laws be enforced? Home inspections?

I don't see that being realistic, due to the 4th amendment. Unfortunately it would be a long process involving negligent parents being locked up for violations of the laws that were discovered due to mishaps or other issues, and then hopefully other parents learning from their poor example.

Maybe there should be a law passed stating that every single firearm sold needs to come with a free trigger lock.

And then that would still leave the massive cache and trade of illegal firearms throughout the country. Which I mentioned upthread would require huge expansion of the ATF, guaranteed to be opposed by some red-leaning states and libertarians. So there we are. The current ATF has fewer agents on the ground than Dallas has cops, yet they are expected to investigate illegal activity nationwide.

TriJets wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

How will such laws be enforced? Home inspections?

I don't see that being realistic, due to the 4th amendment.

Other than the 4th amendment you'd be OK with it?

TriJets wrote:

Unfortunately it would be a long process involving negligent parents being locked up for violations of the laws that were discovered due to mishaps or other issues, and then hopefully other parents learning from their poor example.

You aren't serious, you're just throwing out a word salad. You and all the other NRA types would be up in arms if a "law abiding gun owner" were thrown in jail for a "simple mistake".

TriJets wrote:

Maybe there should be a law passed stating that every single firearm sold needs to come with a free trigger lock.

Then we'd have to train the criminals to give the victim a two minute pause so they can get their key and unlock their guns?

"Realistic" doesn't seem to be a part of you plans.

Aaron747 wrote:

And then that would still leave the massive cache and trade of illegal firearms throughout the country. Which I mentioned upthread would require huge expansion of the ATF, guaranteed to be opposed by some red-leaning states and libertarians. So there we are. The current ATF has fewer agents on the ground than Dallas has cops, yet they are expected to investigate illegal activity nationwide.

The residual illegal firearms would be handled by local police, not ATF.
I would assume that the size of the ATF could be reduced once the initial drawdown of guns took place.

if a person supports the right for an individual to have the choice to own a gun, does that also mean that person has to think its ok for the gun owner to commit murder?

hashtagconfused wrote:

if a person supports the right for an individual to have the choice to own a gun, does that also mean that person has to think its ok for the gun owner to commit murder?

There has to be an assumption that they are OK with the fact that the number of murders in a society with free access to guns will be much higher than in a society where guns are restricted. So in effect, the answer to your question is yes.

I do believe I did spell it out quite clearly, but I don’t mind repeating.

Most crime aren’t driven by bloodlust.
If crime for money and valuables aren’t met by guns, the criminal won’t bring a gun.

You make it uneccesary and illegal to own a gun, they will be turned in. You routinely do weapon amnesties, and you get them off the streets. Make the reward (no criminal prosecution) stronger than the potential gain (I won’t be met by a gun if I do a crime, why make it worse?)

Again.


This has been done. It was done twice in my country after world war II. First to get the weapons given to arm the resistance-movement, a well regulated militia, off the streets. Plus all the german surplus stuff. Pluss all the stuff people had laying about from being hunters before it was regulated.
Then we needed to clean up the army reserves back in the 80’s and 90’s. They made up large parts of the male grown up population, and they all had ammunition and automatic weapons laying around fully legally.
Quite frankly, those weapons were a little to common in causing domestic murders. Drunk husbands killing their wives wanting to divorce them in drunken stupors.
All of them nice guys, mind you!

Gun violence dropped like a stone because of both those strategies.

We aren’t the only country experienced in less guns=less killing.

This has been repeated in country after country.

Vintage wrote:

M564038 wrote:

You place way too much confidence in jail-time as a deterrence. As I said, there are others that has already solved these issues. Why don’t you start listening instead of more of the same old mediaevel solutions we KNOW aren’t the best ones.

Why don't you start listening?

And BTW how do you plan to encourage those leaning towards crime to surrender their guns and discourage them from obtaining new ones?

Let's hear the plan.

Vintage wrote:

hashtagconfused wrote:

if a person supports the right for an individual to have the choice to own a gun, does that also mean that person has to think its ok for the gun owner to commit murder?

There has to be an assumption that they are OK with the fact that the number of murders in a society with free access to guns will be much higher than in a society where guns are restricted. So in effect, the answer to your question is yes.

someone supporting the choice to own a gun does not mean it has to be support for free access to guns. guns are restricted, but they can be restricted more or in different ways that's more effective. or other underlying issues can be addressed in addition to gun rules. support for the former does not have to be support for the latter.

ex if a person accepts an individuals right to drink, it is not also support to drive drunk.

M564038 wrote:

I do believe I did spell it out quite clearly, but I don’t mind repeating.

It seems to me that you should be posting this to some of the NRA fans, not me.
Tell them that they are "not listening".

The interviews with parents on CNN are gut-wrenching

Eric Owens with a good take as usual:

https://twitter.com/ericowensdc/status/ ... DrQ_bL-KqQ

I am sure everyone will read carefully, take note and then humbly change their ways and country for the better, saving hundreds of thousands of lives regardless of whom I replied to;-)

Haha!

Vintage wrote:

M564038 wrote:

I do believe I did spell it out quite clearly, but I don’t mind repeating.

It seems to me that you should be posting this to some of the NRA fans, not me.
Tell them that they are "not listening".

Aaron747 wrote:

TriJets wrote:

Vintage wrote:

I'd go for that. But what would that do to stop things like school shootings, acts of rage, suicides, or children gaining access to guns?

While you and your friends bandy about the 20,000 murdered by guns every year, you ignore that the number of deaths from guns is more than 40,000 every year, and the number of injuries is 115,000 every year.

Our first thing is accepting that the number will never be zero. Bad things will always happen in life. But, to your point....safe storage laws to keep guns out of the hands of kids and red flag laws to help keep guns away from the insane, for starters.

How will such laws be enforced? Home inspections?

Does it really matter at this point? Both seem to be easy and obvious changes that would make a difference, although I doubt Australian level safe storage laws would fly in the US.

scbriml wrote:

A101 wrote:

Terrible news I just cannot understand the mentality of doing such a deranged act, its cases like this I'm all for the death penalty

The gunman is apparently already dead.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/state ... lty-states
Since 1976 Texas has executed nearly five times as many prisoners as the next highest state. Clearly, it's of no deterrence whatsoever.

Well one thing is for sure we won't be dealing with this idiot again. That's the great thing about capital punishment there is no chance of getting out on parole.