The shooting in Thousand Oaks California.
The shooting in Thousand Oaks is too close to home. I use to work in Thousand Oaks. Our thoughts and prayers are with you means nothing to those who lost loved ones. We are being attacked by domestic terrorism from within by mentally unstable people who have easy access to lethal weapons. Every time we have one of these attacks, we lose more loved ones and a little more of our freedom.
I have been on many forum websites and argued with the anti-gun control people. Their main argument is that statistics show more people are murdered by other means than guns every year. They ask, "Should we ban those items as well?" They go to ad absurdum to include, but are not limited to trains, planes, cars and even knifes, and forks.
Almost all mass-shootings are caused by mentally unstable people. However, without proper funding and legislation for mental institutions, this carnage will continue. I believe reasonable gun control is the next best thing that can be done. But guns are big business for the gun industry, gun lobbyist, and the NRA.The anti-gun control people fight any type of gun control because they feel it is a violation of their 2nd Amendment rights.
Is arming everybody the answer? I don't thinks so. There was a security guard at the entrance of the bar in Thousand Oaks and he was the first one who was taken out by the shooter...I have a little great nephew, who asked while he was being taken to school, "Is it safe for me to go to school anymore?" What a sad commentary on our what our life has become.It is indeed a sad commentary. Perhaps one day we will understand better what makes people kill (with guns, "trains, planes, cars and even knifes, and forks", or even matches and/or bombs) and actually do something about it besides taking their preferred weapon from everyone else, but until that time all we can do is protect ourselves. Weapons in churches, schools, etc. or highly undesirable, but are they necessary?
Hey, wilderness, how about people who killed others with their bare hands? This is an American challenge. It can happen anywhere, and thanks.
Bare hands, knives, poison, arson, bombs, baseball bats...the list is endless of how we kill each other. One day perhaps we'll grow up.
The demonstrable difference is that a person can kill so many more people with semi and automatic rifles and hand guns, and many mass shooters are either unable to manufacture a bomb or blow themselves up trying:
How many individuals would any mass shooter have been able to kill with his bare hands, or a knife or a baseball bat before STOPPED? Not nearly as many as with automatic guns:Haven't heard of a match killing people as frequently though, that's the difference.
Exactly lobobrandon, and aside from the extreme and unfortunate case, a person can usually escape a match but of course it's much more difficult to escape a bullet:
Check Australia's record of "massacres" (their word for mass murder). Almost no one died by arson...until after they took the guns away. Whereupon it is the most common weapon used in such killings, and the number of people dying did not decrease at all after spending millions of dollars and confiscating millions of weapons.
Guns are more commonly used here...because they are commonly available and because that's what others have done. Take them away and killers will find another way to kill.
Hey, wilderness, have we not grown up yet? It is said growing up is to be a mature person. Do you then think grown-ups do not kill with the bare hands or bats? These mentally degenerated persons are actually immature. No one knows when the gun gets into their hands. Mature persons in the armed forces can get out of control and kill. All this happens unexpectedly. Do we have another alternate or opinion? Thank you. Have a nice weekend.
That was the point; as a species we have not matured sufficiently.
Wilderness: I believe, as a species, we are becoming more tribal. It is evidenced by the difference in our values and belief systems. We seem to be drawn to others with the same values and beliefs that we harbor and exclude those that don't believe the way we do. We even try to convince "the others" that our way is better than theirs. Social networking seems to exacerbate the division.
After the mid-terms, it is shown that those who live in rural areas tend to be more conservative. While those living in suburban and urban areas tend to be more liberal.
When it comes to the issues on guns, maturity becomes relative. Conservatives tend to believe that the mature thing to do is leave my guns alone and fix all the outlier problems, including mental health issues that cause mass shootings.
While liberals tend to believe that the mature thing to do is to NOT remove guns from those that already have guns, but to legislate reasonable gun control from this point forward, because it is a place to start. It may not be perfect, but it will help.
Gun people believe that nothing will work, so don't do anything. I don't believe that is the mature thing to do as there will certainly be more mass shootings in either case, but with reasonable gun control the trend would be to lessen those shooting events as it would be more difficult for those with bad intentions to get guns.
Fixing mental health is the best solution,but it requires funding and nobody is willing to fund resources and facilities. Therefore, the next best thing is to have reasonable gun control. To me that is the mature thing to do.Don't know that we as a species are becoming more tribal - I would have said that we are fighting tooth and nail to maintain our sense of tribe rather than accept that the tribe is the species. We've always been tribal, in other words, and are fighting to find that tribe in the melting pot of America where so many are denying us the ability to do that. The end result is the same either way, though.
Rural vs urban voting trends; this has been known since long before the mid terms. The question is why - why is it like that? There appears to be a very big difference between urban dwellers and rural - what is it, and why does it produce such a startling red/blue demarcation?
"While liberals tend to believe that the mature thing to do is to NOT remove guns from those that already have guns, but to legislate reasonable gun control from this point forward, because it is a place to start."
Aw, c'mon PP. Take a look at cities banning all guns. Look at the extreme effort to mislabel common hunting rifles in order to scare voters into banning them all. Your "common sense" gun laws always seem to end up taking something from ALL people, whether specific guns, large magazines, bump stocks or anything else. Even purchase requirements have gotten so onerous as to result in people just being unwilling to go through with it all and so just do without a gun. At least be honest here, and quit pretending that there is a concerted push to leave guns with law abiding people and only target those that might use it as a killing tool.
"Fixing mental health is the best solution,but it requires funding and nobody is willing to fund resources and facilities."
And yet we'll spend millions upon millions trying to take guns from people, with the excuse that it's "reasonable" even when we know it won't reduce the death toll from killers. The "next best thing" is to understand why we kill, just as you say, but we refuse to do that because it means we as a people will have to change instead of just those evil, degenerate, immoral gun owners that only want to kill someone.Wilderness: The current U.S. population is over 320 million. The estimated current number of civilian guns is 265 million. How long do you think it would take to confiscate all civilian guns and who is going to pass such legislation to do it anyway?
W: And yet we'll spend millions upon millions trying to take guns from people, with the excuse that it's "reasonable" even when we know it won't reduce the death toll from killers.
M: If you don't take away guns from people who already own them, you are not going to spend millions upon millions. You and others really don't know if reasonable gun control will or will not reduce death tolls from killers. It is just supposition on your part and others, until it is really tried. To me, if one life is saved, it is worth it and that is the mature thing to do.
The reality is no one is coming for your guns, not with the strong lobby gun groups and the NRA whose contributions to politicians make them beholden to those groups for campaign funding and other perks, certainly, not in the next two years and possibly six years.
What are you going to do in the next mass shootings,say our thoughts and prayers our with you, but don't come for my guns?"How long do you think it would take to confiscate all civilian guns and who is going to pass such legislation to do it anyway? "
Not sure of your point. Are you saying that it cannot be done (you're right, but you can certainly take them from law abiding people) and that no congressman/woman has ever indicated a desire to disarm the country (100% false, as we both know)?
"You and others really don't know if reasonable gun control will or will not reduce death tolls from killers. "
It hasn't in any US city or in any country in the world. Still, I guess you can't say we don't know because it hasn't been tried; it might work this time even though it never has anywhere or anytime else.
"To me, if one life is saved, it is worth it and that is the mature thing to do. "
Of course. One life is worthy of the freedom of 320 millions and the money of billions. And that's the "mature" thing...as we spend thousands of lives and billions to protect that freedom. Can't say as I agree, or we would have a 10 MPH speed limit nationwide.
"The reality is no one is coming for your guns"
Ah...the rallying cry of the gun hater as they try to get more of them away. PP, if there were any indication - any at all - that there would be an end to the confiscation I might agree. But there isn't - every year a new fight is started to get some more.
"What are you going to do in the next mass shootings,say our thoughts and prayers our with you, but don't come for my guns?"
Yep. Along with another demand that we address violence in our country. You said it yourself: there is a problem here, and it isn't the tool insane people choose. It is the people themselves and until that is addressed nothing is going to change.Hey, here's the reality. "The current U.S. population is over 320 million. The estimated current number of civilian guns is 265 million." So, 320 - 265 =55 million.
This in effect means that the 55 million who do not carry guns are infants, kids less than 7 years, and frail elderly persons. No statistics here or I may be wrong. I can even be right either.
Okay, when one mad person among the 265 - 1 gun carrying sane persons bring out the gun to kill, why do the remaining 264 run away? What is the reason America carry guns around? Is the gun a lapel? Is it for personal protection alone? Can't the gun be used to defend and protect others? The questions seem reasonable serious, right?
Just getting a license to carry the gun is not saving a life. As it has been noted, many have died. May their soul rest in peace. Now when the madman or woman bring out his/her gun threating a life, and I in both protective and defensive mood bring out mine, and you do likewise in support of my moves, (I am a Nigerian and residing in Nigeria, but I do not have a gun.This is illustrative), can that distract or deter the felony? Good day! And thank you.Miebakagh57:
Here is everything, you wanted to know about gun ownership in the U.S., but are afraid to ask..
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/ … ownership/peoplepower73, thanks for the update. okay, 67% own a gun for protective reasons. This does not include those who own guns for hunting and others. Let's say out of this 67, one insanely man brings out his gun and begin hitting lives. What are the remaining 66% doing? Should they just be a spectator? Apparently, they run away!
This is the issue. That is why I say: why run away? Could not one among the other protection-minded gun owners bring out the gun to deter or distract the insane idiot? Do you get it?
When I was a boy, I was taught in my civic lessons in primary school that it was not right to watch two men fighting. One must go to part them and resolve the issue. You are than being a good citizen. So watching a gun welding insane person just firing bullets into innocent persons is not that right. I hope this is getting clearer. Thank you.Approximately 5% of the people in the country have a concealed carry permit - virtually required if you're going to carry a gun around town.
That means that if a random person is at a mass shooting site, there is a 5% chance that they have a permit. A lesser chance that they are actually carrying a weapon, and a MUCH lesser chance of having one in a gun free zone, where most such shootings occur.
But consider; you are in a church, with your gun. A shooter begins firing. Assuming you aren't already hit, are you going to start throwing bullets around that extremely crowded room? If you head towards the shooter, for a better shot, you're likely dead and can't kill him. And of course if you do kill the shooter you're going to be investigated for murder; could you have tackled him, talked him down, thrown a chair at him, etc.
It does happen that a bystander breaks up a murder or mass murder, but it is rare. And of course when it does happen, media is not happy about reporting it. It is not politically acceptable to have people defending themselves or their family/friends.
Your picture of America as the old west where everyone has a gun on their hip, is a little outdated.
http://concealednation.org/2015/07/repo … w-abiding/
"Okay, when one mad person among the 265 - 1 gun carrying sane persons bring out the gun to kill, why do the remaining 264 run away?"
Probably because your assumption that there is exactly one gun per person is very, very wrong. And the assumption that gun owners typically carry their weapons on their person is just as wrong.Hello, wilderness, your take is wrong. I am as not assuming that among the 265 only one is carrying the gun. Here I simplify the issue. There are 265 gun carriers. One brings out the gun to threaten a life. The others just run away or do nothing. Why? I hope this helps.
But there aren't 265 gun carriers. There is only one (legal) gun owner, and he left all 265 guns at home. That was the point - 265 million guns does not equate with 265 million gun owners, and 100 million gun owners does not mean 100 million people walking about with a gun over their shoulder. Very few people carry a gun day to day, and virtually all of those leave them home when going to a gun-free zone...which is where mass shootings happen.
Hello, wilderness, you are very much welcomed. But why leave the guns at home? Why should not a gun owner carry his gun at times? Does the law which permits one to buy, tell you to keep that dangerous tool always at home? But a man person carry his gun into a gun free zone! Why? And thank you.
Because the're heavy. Because they're bulky. Because the clothing chosen leaves it visible and obvious. Because you don't want it around children. Because you are going where NO gun is permitted. There could be a thousand reasons to leave it home.
"Does the law which permits one to buy, tell you to keep that dangerous tool always at home?"
The permit to purchase does NOT give the right to carry it concealed ("concealed" includes in a holster outside clothing) in public places. And few people wish to carry a rifle everywhere they go.
People obviously carry a gun into gun free zones. They're called "criminals" and do a lot of things they should never do.
Good point, and this is a social matter that politicians do not want to touch. And few Americans that do not work in the field, or at hospitals or with police realize that we are awash with people that cannot function in society and are a threat to themselves and others, they are everywhere.
Our police have to constantly and repeatedly deal with the same people who are such threats, that should be removed from the rest of society. But we closed down those state institutions long ago.
There are complexes that could house tens of thousands that I have seen, that used to house such people, those places have long been vacant and unused...and people who would have resided there are now allowed to walk the streets, they receive no care, they qualify for no insurance, they cycle through mental wards like clockwork.
None of them should be allowed to own a gun, of course, this person did not own a gun legally. Which goes to show that whether or not something is illegal matters not, when the person has mental health issues or is a criminal and they want a weapon, they will get one.
And yet, had even a few of those people been carrying a weapon, and had been trained to use them, how long would the killing have lasted?
Truthfully, if that was a combat vet (as it sounds like), then it could have been far worse, I doubt many people realize that a Ranger, or a Marine, or a Seal, is potentially capable of killing dozens, if not thousands of people... by themselves, in mere moments. Those that have received the training and years of experience.
Its one of the reasons our country should do a LOT more for its veterans, and worry a lot more about their health, and a lot less for people who aren't Americans and sacrificed nothing for this country.If only the club had an armed guard. This might have been prevented.
I didn't want to say this, but it was the first thought that came to mind after I was first enlightened about this magical solution by a famous man.
Massachusetts offers a possible model for common sense gun control
https://www.vox.com/2018/11/13/17658028 … s-licensesNope. Can't go with it.
It sounds very expensive, and a very good way to reduce gun ownership simply because people can no longer afford the price of the process necessary to purchase. You have a constitutional right to a gun, but only a cheap, reasonably short process is acceptable. Not a weeks long process that will cost a month's pay before entering the store.
The government has no need to know what, or if I own guns. No gun registration, for if it is there it will eventually be used to confiscate.
And finally, the opinion of the police chief, that cannot be challenged without MORE expense and time, is completely unacceptable. Again, we're talking about a constitutional right here; not some minor privilege.
Fix these small problems and it sounds good. No problem with getting a license before purchasing, no problem with obtaining a second background check (if the first one is over 6 months old). I'd even go along with a training requirement. But not those three things - they aren't designed to save lives; they are designed to limit the ability of law abiding citizens to exercise their rights under the law.
Your 'mature' solution involves this times several hundreds of times. Grow up. You certainly have some growing up to do.Wesman: So you present a historical event that was committed by our own Federal government against the Sioux Indians and want to make a hypothetical argument that this could happen again by our on federal government against it's own people! Only this time it would be several hundred times worse.
First off, the Sioux hate to be called that name. It is a great insult and considered derogatory to them. They are the Lakota and they have several different bands
Second, what you presented is a gross, overstated example of false equivalence. Just because that happened in 1890 by the 7th Calvary doesn't mean it is going to happen again...welcome to the 21st Century! And your idea that it is going to happen several hundred times again, is a gross exaggeration.
You do know that Custer and his troops of the 7th Calvary were wiped out by the same Sioux at little big horn!
So you want me grow up while you have infantile fantasies as to the 7th Calvary is coming for your guns!
- Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago
0Peoplepower like so many of the uninformed really thinks that banning guns is going to cure this *, he easily ignores the real issues of these killings , mental illness , veteran PTSD , pi$$ poor veterans care , revolving door justice , recidivist career criminals ,
an uncaring and actually nonexistent mental health system , ................
How sad .
* As if Banning were even possibleEd, most of the time you and I don't see eye-to-eye, but I'm with you on this one. Our mental health laws are ridiculous, the VA's answer to PTSD is doping the veterans so they'll sleep and just wake up long enough to eat, and on and on. I have been in two situations, first as a pregnant woman whose husband worked the night shift, and then as a single mom to two sons, in which I believe that having a gun in my possession may have saved my life. I would like to see the gun add-ons that allow ordinary weapons to be turned into automatic weapons banned. I don't think they are necessary for protection in most situations.
- Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
Wilderness , No , we will never "grow up " and why exactly ?
Because we as a nation don't know how to effect change in situations that are not "normal " for us to think within or about .
Mental illness ; with a myriad of reasons from child abuse to PTSD , from psychopathic / sociopathic isolationism , to anger control issues , the list why our minds cannot grasp the minds of the criminal is as endless as the types of crimes themselves .
Criminal Justice : Somewhere along the way we lost sight of the importance and the knowhow to adjudicate the crime , we ignored recidivism , we outdated "punishment " as cruel , we outsourced effective process to money making defense attorney machines , we politicized the prosecutor's job performance , and then we lied about it all in a news media .
Juvenile Incarceration ; We stacked like cordwood troubled boys and girls in crime infested jails and forgot about them as they were being exploited by career criminal predators , Offered nothing to them but jail entitlements as punishments .
Recidivism ; Somewhere between 70 and 90 % of first time violence and gun crimes return to the streets and recommit worse crimes with guns , sticks , clubs , knives or their bare hands .
Gun Control ; Hasn't worked anywhere , in fact the more legislated gun controls against the law abiding citizen has only proven out worse crime statistics from within the very same areas . NYC , Chicago , Trenton , LA. Baltimore ,
Statistics ? ; We ignore completely ,other than the newer phenom of "mass shootings " , that most violent and uncontrollable criminal acts with guns are pleaded down to not only exonerate the gun crimes themselves completely from the picture BUT ignore the larger elements of race and ethnicity because of political correctness.
We essentially have too far to go and no time to get there . As an Hvac mechanic, the facts are obvious to me. Gun grabbers are persons with a fetish for taking power away from everyone, most especially, those who've never committed any sort of crime. The gun grabber is a person with very little power, and so all forms of power other individuals may have is something they feel threatened by. It's a form of emotional immaturity, and most often associated with liberalism.
As an Hvac mechanic, I always knew the easiest way for me to kill a lot of people would not be with guns, but with simple chains and locks. I could then pump a certain burned refrigerant into a space from the rooftop (leaving out specific details for them being dangerous), such would create a gas used as a deadly weapon during the first world war.
Gun grabbers, often being intellectually stunted as well as emotionally immature, can never account for the will to kill having nothing at all to do with an inanimate instrument. The poor education and imagination of the gun grabber, again, is something to behold. They ask, 'how many would someone be able to kill with their bare hands?!'
I've not been that lacking in knowledge or imagination since I was at least ten years old. The gun grabber is correct in one thing, if everyone was as brilliant as a gun grabber, fewer persons would be killed.
Seriously, every child who's seen a Batman film should be able to think of ways to kill lots of persons without a gun. Focusing on guns is focusing on what is inanimate. It's like thinking about dirt all the time and wondering why crops don't just up and grow without any further input. LOL.
If I didn't know any better, I'd think the focus on guns was 1. a product of a mind unable to probe further, meaning towards the actual cause of the violence, or 2. a complete unwillingness to want to get to the root of the actual problem, the will to do mass murder.
It's easiest to not think at all, and just blame inanimate lumps of metal and wood.If more gun laws worked, this horrible incident should not have happened in California.
When the boy who would be king, David, killed the giant with a stone. David had nothing to do with it. Everyone has always known it was the stone. LOL.
Hi, MizBejabbers, let's say all the guns were taken away; including other dangerous weapons like knives, sticks, karate, kung-fu, judo, or any bar hand fighting. Can this help?
No, what would you use to cut up a fish or slice your Thanksgiving turkey? Then they would have to ban automobiles and trucks because those can and do kill, especially when driven into crowds. How would we get our daily supplies and get to work? Don't be ridiculous.
Hey, thanks for the comment. You are welcomed.
"How would we get our daily supplies and get to work?"
For some 14 million hunters the same could be asked about how they would get their daily food without a gun.There really are some people in this country who depend on hunting for food, especially the poor in rural areas, but their existence seems to have been ignored by the gun banners. I say this because my family depended heavily on my father's hunting skills for our wintertime protein after we moved to town from the farm and could no longer raise animals.
Like you, my family of 5 existed on wild meat. Typically 3 deer and one elk every year, plus perhaps half a hog purchased for pork. I was participating in those hunts by the time I was a teenager. Not sure where we would have been without that 1,000 pounds or so of "free" meat.
I've never understood why we ignore social media in the rising violence. It's so much easier to feel ostracized, so much easier to feel isolated. So much easier for larger groups to push people to the edge and into violence. It is different, when a couple of people are mean spirited. Let them gather in a forum and a poor soul can be pushed to believe they are forever isolated and alone.
Mental health is an issue, but it is our collective mental health exacerbating the problem.Hello, Live to Learn, "Mental health is an issue, but it is our collective mental health exacerbating the problem." Now,how do we identified this collective mental health problem? Is it within a group or forum? Thank you.
It is apparently human nature to want to feel included. I've seen good people do bad things in their zeal to ensure they are accepted into a crowd.
People will do incredibly uncaring things to ensure they are not excluded. That sets off a chain reaction in the individual to justify that behavior. It creates mental conflict, I hope. For those it doesn't, I'd call that a mental health issue. For those it does, it's a potential mental health issue.
We used to do things, go home and parse them in our minds, resolvingconflict between actions and how we might have preferred to act. That space is dwindling. People simply go online, find validation from others and act again. The internet is a mob. A 24 hour, unending mob.
- Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
The number one cause of death in America is heart disease , We Must Ban Hearts Today , If we had mare regulations for hearts there would be less deaths because of them , We should also create "heart free zones " we just HAVE to find a way to protect the innocence of children , Hearts should be highly regulated so that the wrong people cannot acquire a heart . Mandatory heart locks and heart safes would make for a far safer world . Hearts should also be regulated so that they are capable of firing only one function at a time , hearts are capable of hurting many ,many people at once , Heart capacity should also be highly regulated . There are many nations where hearts have been regulated beyond those in the USA and in effect they now have less crimes of the heart than we do here . We should perhaps follow the examples set by the more intelligent countries that have successfully regulated hearts for instance . There is also NO constitutional right to own a heart , all the more reason to ban or at least highly regulate them .
Ed: There you go, one giant false equivalence...nice try, but that dog don't hunt anymore.
Frankly, I thought Ed's sarcasm was funny. This discussion seems to have gotten out of hand anyway.
- Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
Peoplepower , You DO know what the false equivalent to unmitigated B.S. is right ?
- Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
Almost half [50%]of released criminals go to recidivism within two years , by five years seventy [70 %] recommit . 1% of US population commit 80-90 % of violent crimes .
You figure it out ................
Good bye , I'm going muzzleloader hunting . - Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
Liberals are in highest states of denial because their 50 year agenda of becoming softer on criminal punishment in America has proven an unmitigated disaster , lean on punishing , soft on incarceration , statistics , just as they originate from a liberal academia , are biased to B.S. success stories while reality points to abject failures right across the board.
Punish a criminal ---end a crime . 
Gun control is requires gun violence, but it is also the extremely immature fetish of the common mind who is avoiding the actual causes of mass murder incidents. They know those causes are beyond their ability to address, so like an infant wanting a pacifier, they focus on the material thing.I wondered where you got your political info from, Wessman. The Simpson's apparently. This explains a lot of things...
At least The Simpsons are better at dealing with facts than Fox News.Here is what I hear, when you cut through all the B.S.
1. There is a mass shooting where several people are killed.
2. There are more people murdered by heart attacks, so let's ban heart attacks, cars, trucks, knives, forks...ad absurdum.
3. I don't care how many people are killed by mass shootings, you are not coming after my guns because I'm a legal gun owner and and a law abiding citizen.
4. Reasonable gun control is the battle cry of the liberal anti-gun people who want to confiscate my guns. They can't be trusted and eventually, they will confiscate my guns.
5. Gun control has never worked in other countries, why would it work here?
6. Mental illness is the primary cause of mass shootings. We don't need gun control; we need to fix mental health.
7. Everybody should be armed, so that a good guy with a gun can take out a bad guy with a gun.
8. There are so many versions of AR-15s and Glocks, they can't be defined.
9. There are so many other ways to mass kill people than guns, so why even have gun control?
10. And finally, our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families.Right Mike, who cares for the dead people as long as we have our guns?
Randy: You are right. Dead people don't talk, even the ones who commit the crimes and then kill themselves. Therefore, we never know what their motives are. And it's even worse in Florida with the Stand your ground laws. They can kill innocent people, and innocent dead people never talk.
Mike, I challenge you to provide proof more gun laws and "gun free zones" have helped decrease gun violence. You can't use NYC or Chicago or even Los Angeles as an example. They are examples of just the opposite.
When Australia passed their law banning semi-automatic rifles, the number of people shot to death in mass murders (10 years after the law vs 10 years before the law) decreased considerably.
The number of bodies went up just a tick, but they didn't have bullet holes.Readmikenow: I agree with you, there are over 200 gun laws on the books at the state levels and they don't work. That'a why we need a uniform set of laws at the federal level that all states follow and are well thought out. When one keeps saying the laws don't work today and new laws won't work, all they are doing is kicking the can further down the road.
peoplepower, okay but you failed to add something to the effect that mentally sick persons are always carrying their guns around 24/7. As such, people with protective and defensive motives should always carry they guns likewise. Shoot out the insane guy, and you saved more lives, right? Had I not spelled out this before? I hope you will make a brief out of this and add it as list number 11. Thank you, and good day!
Miebakagh57: Maybe in Nigeria, they carry their guns 24/7, but in the U.S. We never know when a mentally unstable person is going to commit mass shootings until after they do it. They even kill our law enforcement people who do carries guns 24/7.
Hello, Mike, it is my pleasure meeting you online. In Nigeria, personal or private guns have been all surrounder some years ago due to political instability. But some pocket or group of unrest persons are still holding guns.
They used the same for armed robbery and murder, or even kidnapping. They used them to patronized politicians during election periods. It is suspected the politician fund the AK45 guns. Any time these bring out the guns, the police run after them or on a tip-off.
The Boko Haram and Mayati Ala cattle Fulani killers challenge is more of an external terrorist influence by the ISIS. Recently my Federal Government of Nigeria is asking the US government and others including Isreal for help.
In Nigeria, gun ownership by an individual as in the US is a rare reality. Mass killings by individual insane or mentally degenerated persons rarely occurred. But armed robbery is common, and is decreasing.
I chuckle when you say the gun is aimed at your police or army! Guns are awful! Same here too. Thanks and good day.
Many crime-prone persons are now leveraging on soft punishment. The best way is to punish a crime fully in the eyes of th public. But because this was not done early, a crime wave has risen since many are taking advantage of this. Thank you.
- Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
Liberals who can't deal with their paranoia's about guns and the people that have them suffer abject paranoia about many things .
Best solution , guns and Americans are inseparable ;
Get over it . - Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
If your people were allowed to defend themselves with gun ownership by a two hundred plus year old constitutional right like in the US , your friends , your neighbors and even your family would be not only far safer but your crime rates would drop to modern levels of civility without gangs of thugs running your country . I suggest you help to bring your nation into the 21st century by gaining legislation and arming your people .
Here , THAT required a revolution won by an armed people against the eternal tyranny of organized government ."You are dangerous without guns." -Sir Abubakar Tafawa Belewa, first Prime minister of Nigeria. Some irritated youths from the once prestigious University of Ibadan, Nigeria went to see the Late Prime Minister Belewa to legislate for the youths to carry guns. That quotation is the advice he gave them.
Special police were created and armed. It was alleged that it was used as a political tool, leading to the effect that no region or a certain part of the country Nigeria should create the police force.
I was just a boy in my primary school, but I read all that comes my way in the first political dispensations in my secondary school days.
During the civilian Presidency of Olusegun Obasanjo, youths were armed with AK 47 guns. They misuse them. It was outlawed my incoming new government.
Nigeria is not like the US. Nigeria a country with diverse ethnic groups who were for having various cultures, languages, religion, and so on. Whereas, the US has only one language ENGLISH because you were initially an offshore people of the United Kingdom and various English speaking peoples in Europe.Thank you, and good day.Ed: You wrote: "Liberals who can't deal with their paranoia's about guns and the people that have them suffer abject paranoia about many things .
Best solution , guns and Americans are inseparable.
Get over it ."
According to Pew Research, the number one reason for owning guns is for protection. That tells me gun owners don't trust law enforcement to protect them. That also tells me that you guys are the ones who suffer from the paranoia, not us. That also tells me you are afraid of tyranny where a foreign or our own government is going to attack you. It also tells me you don't trust our government and law enforcement to protect you.
You tell me who suffers from paranoia? I sleep well at night, not because I have two shot guns, and a rifle, but because I trust my government not to turn on me and law enforcement to protect me, but I feel for the innocent men, women, and children who are no longer with us because of mass shootings that cannot be reduced and will happen over and over again.Hi, Mike, you are welcomed. It is the most desirable of all things for citizens of a country to depend on the government for protection. This is decided many years ago during the state of anarchy. Now, people are saying "I can protect myself." Yes, and I think all this because of political linings like the liberal, democrats, and others.
Your comment is worthy. Thanks for weighing in.
- Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
Oh ye' silly paranoids ;
There is no paranoia in conservative America , Why ? Because we built America as it is , we wrote the constitution in handwriting with not only the blood of tyrants on our hands but that of our sons , brothers , neighbors and friends . We are neither afraid of law enforcement or of the criminal elements . We leave all that to you as inner city dwellers .
We also , to date , control our share of elective legislative leadership and they not only know that but fear and respect it as well , in fact in the literal sense we also own them , our lobbyists sit in legislative rooms day after day as government decides our futures . the future of firearms and anything to do with it . As a matter of fact , I have sat in on state legislations as they decide the futures of archery , black powder and firearm hunting laws and recreations.
So that whenever a anti-gun sponsor stands and cries out " ban all of this or that to do with firearms" OUR people stand and recite the second amendment and all of it's supportive SCOTUS decisions as they are thus written .
Tyranny ? No , why do we not fear tyranny ? Because what do tyrants need first and foremost to get anywhere near their thrones of leadership ? Gun owners ! Trained , militaristic , organized , loyal , self sufficient , strong willed and steadfast in their beliefs...........
The gun owner feels absolutely no threat from anything or anyone but government -Socialism in the form of written "laws and protections for the people ..........." That is your department . Then on the other hand do we fear the darkness of night ? What a strange thing to say .......No Peoplepower , we own the night .
Pew Research ? Yes , I've read all the polls and they don't seem to get it that the first and foremost reason that gun owners actually owned , purchased or inherited guns in the first place , Because you and I both would have long ago starved in our little cabins in the woods , and in the smog infested cities of your residence , if we didn't own guns .
Try again Peoplepower .E: There is no paranoia in conservative America , Why ? Because we built America as it is , we wrote the constitution in handwriting with not only the blood of tyrants on our hands but that of our sons , brothers , neighbors and friends . We are neither afraid of law enforcement or of the criminal elements . We leave all that to you as inner city dwellers
M: So in your fantasy world, only conservatives were the framers of the constitution? .
E: We also , to date , control our share of elective legislative leadership and they not only know that but fear and respect it as well , in fact in the literal sense we also own them , our lobbyists sit in legislative rooms day after day as government decides our futures . the future of firearms and anything to do with it . As a matter of fact , I have sat in on state legislations as they decide the futures of archery , black powder and firearm hunting laws and recreations.
So that whenever a anti-gun sponsor stands and cries out " ban all of this or that to do with firearms" OUR people stand and recite the second amendment and all of it's supportive SCOTUS decisions as they are thus written .
M: You guys lost the popular vote and the 2nd amendment is still subject to interpretation.
E: Tyranny ? No , why do we not fear tyranny ? Because what do tyrants need first and foremost to get anywhere near their thrones of leadership ? Gun owners ! Trained , militaristic , organized , loyal , self sufficient , strong willed and steadfast in their beliefs...........
The gun owner feels absolutely no threat from anything or anyone but government -Socialism in the form of written "laws and protections for the people ..........." That is your department . Then on the other hand do we fear the darkness of night ? What a strange thing to say .......No Peoplepower , we own the night .
M: You fear liberal socialism because when you hear those words, you immediately equate it to communism. Grow up this is the 21st Century. You are telling me what a strange thing to say and yet you say you own the night. What is that some poetic fantasy?
E:Pew Research ? Yes , I've read all the polls and they don't seem to get it that the first and foremost reason that gun owners actually owned , purchased or inherited guns in the first place , Because you and I both would have long ago starved in our little cabins in the woods , and in the smog infested cities of your residence , if we didn't own guns
M: Yes for protection from other people taking your stuff and wild bars in them thar woods, yes siree bub.Hi, Mike & Ed, this is a lovely talk. Allow me to key in. Okay? Well, this is a purely American issue. I read your history, "AN OUTLINE OF AMERICAN HISTORY," a paperback I received as a gift from the American Embassy, years ago.
While in my university days, American history also appeal to me and I did very well, my professor scoring my above 70%. The American constitution including the second amendment has many challenges. The Framers who lock themselves up for many days were from various background, I mean countries like the Dutch, English, spain, and other Europeans countries.
The mind then was how to take over and protect the colony (British property) from the United Kingdom. John Adam, who later become the 2nd President was foremost in this. So many issues still exists in the constitution.
Rightly, Americans do desire to own a gun for protection. That was agreed upon and written down. So you want to change that after hundreds of years? That can hardly happen. But should it be so, good. Thank you.
- Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
Peoplepower, Sorry your points are lame and not applicable ,
Gun Owners WERE the framers of the constitution , non owners were coattail draggers coming out of hiding from the redcoats after the war .
"You guys lost the popular vote and the second amendment is subject to interpretation ....." Sure it is ! Just like the first one right ?
Peoplepower , the popular vote doesn't count , didn't you read that history book ?
You obviously have no knowledge of peacetime uses of firearms , that's too bad especially for someone of your age group . You should read an Outdoor Life , Field and Stream , some kind of outdoor magazine..............gain some insight for once , instead of nearsight .Ed: The popular vote does count. Trump's base is very small and continues to dwindle as evidenced by the mid=terms. His votes came from the electoral college states that leverage the votes. Hillary didn't know how to play the game, but that isn't going to happen again.
Oh my God. I grew up on field and stream and outdoor life. I was going to get a degree in wildlife management, but I joined the Air Force instead. I took a correspondence course in taxidermy and mounted many ducks, crows, and even a great white horned owl. I had lessons for even mounting elephants.
Just because, you make assumptions on these forums doesn't mean you know people you are debating. I still have my goose and duck call. We live right off the Santa Ana River and when the Canadian Honkers fly over our house, I call them and sometimes I can get them to turn.
When I got out of the Air Force, I didn't want to kill ducks and geese anymore. After the season closed I use to go down to the wildlife management refuge at the southern tip of the Salton Sea and take movies of the geese. I'm still fascinated by them in flight...See you really don't know me. I can show you how to skin a bird and keep the feathers intact so that you can mount it. By the way Ed, my name is Mike.
Just in case you guys think I'm lying. I know we are not supposed to promote our own articles, but I'll risk it just for you guys.
https://hubpages.com/sports/My-Other-LifeAre you saying ED is mistaken, PePo? I believe it's the first time it's happened!
Was it clear?
The Senate gained Republican seats.
The house, despite having 44 Republicans resign, and never before seen spending by Democrat supporters, didn't shift overwhelmingly to the Democrats, unlike the massive shift that took place after Obama's first two years.
I think you are deluding yourself. And without all the corrupt efforts in Texas, Florida, Arizona and Georgia, it would be even more clear that the Republicans all but won the mid-terms... an almost unprecedented result for mid-term elections for the party that holds the Presidency.You're the one who's claiming there was corruption, Ken. Of course, you--like the other Trump fans--have no proof. If you do, you need to contact the authorities with your valuable info. Do you have such?
- Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
I live rurally and grew up as such as a kid in the fifties and sixties , If it wasn't for hunting and fishing , we lower income would have likely starved , many here would have ...... There was very little "welfare " as we know it today , no food stamps , no WIC , no food kitchens ............No regrets .
Anti- gun people today need to think about how firearms created and shaped America but they won't for ideological purposes , Peoplepower needs to go and buy his chicken , pork and beef at the market where the clear plastic wrapping insulates him from his family origins . NONE of you would even be here today but for firearms , hunters and yes , meat killers .Ed: My dad was in the poultry business. We had 14 trucks and as a teenager I use to go with the drivers and pick up fryers and turkeys on a grand scale, like in a chicken house with 4,000 fryers. You haven't lived until you have been hit in the testicles by a turkey wing.
You see what you guys are talking about has nothing to do with mass shootings. Your underlying message is you don't want them coming for your guns because you grew up with them. Well so did I and I know they are not coming for my guns or yours."You haven't lived until you have been hit in the testicles by a turkey wing." I know this is way off topic, but that line had me laughing. Good sense of humor.
I still say that gun laws are as effective as laws against illegal drugs. I don't know why anyone would think they would be any more effective. Laws only impact the law abiding.
- Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
As violent as politics is making the new liberals they will need to get beyond their juvi level of protests , criminal threatening , chasing conservative patrons out of restaurants and bars , what will they do when they run out of bricks , drinks to throw , ..............they're becoming increasingly violent , even revolutionary ?
Yet they want to ban firearms ?
They don't make a lick of sense .Ed, appreciated. That is human nature duality. The mind is a terrible thing. It is obviously an open wound,sored, putrifing, and unreeponding to the best medication. Perhaps, it is cancerous? Truth can hardly heal it. What if guns are now outlaw and withdraw, this very same mind will ask that it be brough back again. Thank you, and good day.
- Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
Miebackagh,
In America today there is a movement to change the name of the Democratic party to the Entitlements party . Why ? Because they are a party that has grown up from the generation of spoiled baby boomers . It has become extremely difficult to contain this party to anything resembling a viable political entity .
In America we are a family ,
Have you ever seen the family where their children are so spoiled that they leave their toys scattered around the yard ? Where their behavior is so wild that they cannot be controlled by the father or mother ? Whatever the child wants they begin to scream and cry until placated with some new thing , a pacifier , a new toy , a happy meal ? When the Democratic party gets so out of hand , as with gun violence , we usually allow them one new LAW to placate the spoiled child within . THAT is the democratic party in America .Ed: Today's republican party is like a multi-layered pyramid. At the top you have Donald Trump, in fact, there is a movement to call it the Party of Trump. This is where all the firings and replacements take place to protect Trump from investigations. This is where foreign and domestic policies are made by tweets, proclamations, executive orders, and just plain whims.
The next layer is the GOP Congress. They have tried 54 times to remove and replace Obama Care. They also want to rob social security, and medicare to pay for Trump's tax cuts, to lower his already 1.6 billion added to the budget deficit.
The next layer is big moneyed interests and corporations who's wages continue to go up to extraordinary levels, while workers wages are stagnant. This is the layer that is most affected negatively by Trump's tariffs.
The next layer is the donor layer, including the NRA and very powerful lobby groups. The GOP needs them to fund their campaigns and win elections. Therefore, they will never allow gun control of any kind, because they are beholden to all that money.
The next layer is all the kooks, like the Tea Party, now called the Freedom Caucus, who say they don't like big government, and Obama Care, but don't take away my preexisting condition benefits and medicare. But cut back on entitlements which are a minuscule part of the budget.
The next layer is the biggest layer. It is made up of all the brainwashed rural voters and "forgotten ones" who don't even know they are voting against their own best interest, but they support Donald Trump with blind faith. This is the most important layer for the GOP, because it is the base where Trump holds his rallies and the GOP and Trump needs them to get the electoral college votes they need to get reelected. This is where the evangelical Christians have forsaken their morality, because they say the economy is more important than morality.
- Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
Peoplepower , And the best part , we are winning .
Smaller , cheaper , less intrusive government . Not one addicted to growth , spend , entitle and coddling of and to the non-working masses . THAT which is exactly what happened to post WWII european countries of which the results today are shown all across Europe . Greece for example , France , Italy ,.......countries once the Mfg .engines of Europe now the welfare states of the E.U ., begging for scraps from the more industrially and work ethic advanced U.K. , Germany , and the richer nations Denmark , Switzerland , Norway ............
As the Democrats in America turn to the fake [pie in the sky ] imagery of these "successful " Socialism states they forget that each one of them has a GDP of one wealth enriching source , Oil , natural gas , or something like the banking industry ........and say , Yes ! America should be just like them thus forgetting that THAT is the failed state governments that we came from in the beginning !
The dream of successful Socialism in America , except for the young , the mentally or physically lazy and the politically deranged is a no brainer , It doesn't work anymore . In fact It never did work. Every single government in history that rechanneled it's revenue based incomes more towards entitlement programs BEYOND THE BASIC welfare programs soon went totally broke doing so . It's proven fact , socialisms have all gone financially broke from entitlement directed spending .
In fact , If.. BIG IF ...America is to be saved from going down those same well traveled roadways of democracies turned socialisms It will be conservatives who will save America from such an economic disaster. Why You ask ? Because we are the only party even close to being fiscally responsible . Sad part is , you and all the other socialist wanna be's know that extremely well but are simply drooling over short term gains at long term costs .
Peoplepower ,You know that I'm right about this .One thing to add , An armed society will guard against socialist tyranny , while an unarmed society will fall victim , Hitler , Mussolini , Stalin , all knew that very well and the first thing they called for , --like America's left--, was the disarmament of civilians .
Heil Peoplepower !Ed: So you never even replied to my last two posts. You just go off on this rant about how great republicans are and how bad democrats are. In case you didn't read my first post, here it is again.
PEOPLEPOWER73 WROTE:
Ed: The popular vote does count. Trump's base is very small and continues to dwindle as evidenced by the mid=terms. His votes came from the electoral college states that leverage the votes. Hillary didn't know how to play the game, but that isn't going to happen again.
Oh my God. I grew up on field and stream and outdoor life. I was going to get a degree in wildlife management, but I joined the Air Force instead. I took a correspondence course in taxidermy and mounted many ducks, crows, and even a great white horned owl. I had lessons for even mounting elephants.
Just because, you make assumptions on these forums doesn't mean you know people you are debating. I still have my goose and duck call. We live right off the Santa Ana River and when the Canadian Honkers fly over our house, I call them and sometimes I can get them to turn.
When I got out of the Air Force, I didn't want to kill ducks and geese anymore. After the season closed I use to go down to the wildlife management refuge at the southern tip of the Salton Sea and take movies of the geese. I'm still fascinated by them in flight...See you really don't know me. I can show you how to skin a bird and keep the feathers intact so that you can mount it. By the way Ed, my name is Mike.
Just in case you guys think I'm lying. I know we are not supposed to promote our own articles, but I'll risk it just for you guys.
https://hubpages.com/sports/My-Other-Life
In Britain guns are banned. Anything beyond a registered shotgun in a rural area designated for hunting is forbidden. Guess what? They still have a trouble with people being murdered. A BIG problem actually.
“The official Metropolitan Police tally of violent deaths this year is 120, but the figure takes in two cases that are being treated as self-defence.
Among the victims aged 16 to 24, 30 were stabbed, nine were shot, two died in attacks involving a knife and a gun, and one died in a fall. For the teenagers aged 15 to 19, six were shot and 14 were stabbed.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/1 … bloodshed/The gun grabbers literally don't care about homicides. They just hate that people have guns. It's based in an inability and unwillingness to admit the problem has nothing to do with those things people have that they don't want them to have.
Wesman: I think you have it wrong. They just don't want innocent men, women, and children to be killed by mindless mass shooters. I could care less about taking your guns away. I know you find that hard to believe.
I agree as I too once hunted extensively during my younger years, but now I seldom trek to a stand or attend a dove shoot like I once did. I still have my collection of hunting "tools" as well as some antique firearms or those inherited over the years.
Needless to say, these tools can also be for self defense if need be, so I have no need of high capacity magazines or bump stocks. I personally don't know anyone from the left who wants to take all firearms away despite those on the right claiming so. It's simply right wing propaganda repeated over and over until many fall for it.Then you had best get started finding something other than inanimate objects to blame for the actions of mass shooters.
How does this compare with Chicago and other high crime cities with roughly the same populations and firearms, Mike?
Have you looked at the stats for Fla and other high firearm ownership states?Mike, you've got to be kidding, right? That data supports gun control. 120 violent deaths? Versus what in the U.S.? 120,000? Doesn't Britain's approach support banning guns. They seem to have very few violent deaths according to the stats you provided.
Ah, you didn't read the article. Those statistics are for JUST the city of London for the first 9 months of 2018. With guns being banned...there shouldn't be ANY gun deaths...right? Isn't that the logic on the left? No guns means no gun deaths? It's not happening in London.
NYC is another place where guns are strictly controlled. Guess what? They also have a pretty high murder rate.
"The city saw 147 murders through the end of June, an increase of 11 from the 136 notched to the same point in 2017."
https://nypost.com/2018/07/10/nycs-murd … -violence/
So, two cities where guns are either outright banned or heavily restricted still have trouble with gun violence. Proof gun laws are about as effective as drug laws.No. That is not what anyone is saying. They are saying it will reduce gun deaths. That is clearly true in London. You are scoring points for the wrong side.
Banning guns, or reducing the number of guns, if it can be done effectively, WILL reduce the number of murders using a gun. That's pretty much a no-brainer - a first grade child could figure that one out. If there are no guns, killers will not use a gun to kill with.
The question is, will it reduce the number of murders? And there is zero evidence anywhere in the world to indicate that to be a "Yes". There is no correlation between the number of guns on a society and the number of homicides in that society. None.Well, the murder rate is five times higher in the US than in Britain. However, murder rate seems to correlate to unstable economies. Wonder if the rise in the US could be due to increased concentrations of wealth or increased concentrations and/or increases in the number of poor people?
What is also interesting is that I would think we would want as much study and data in this subject as possible, yet the NRA actively lobbies against such things.
The NRA lobbies against studies? I would like to see proof of such an allegation. The NRA has no control or influence over government studies.
Of course they do. They lobby against such things. Any proof I provide will just be derided as fake news, so I don’t see the point in that, but here’s one. Scientists are all biased liberals though.
https://www.ucsusa.org/suppressing-rese … -xBDaROmEcInteresting article. Thanks for sharing. I believe the influence and money the NRA spends is very over stated. Here is an article from CNBC I think makes this point.
"The NRA, gun makers, and gun rights issues do not even show up on the OpenSecrets website lists for top lobbying firms, top lobbying sectors, top lobbying issues, or top lobbying industries for the years 1998-2017"
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/16/nra-mon … ntary.htmlVery interesting.
I am not an alarmist and believe this nation’s love of guns is something we must live with and that the vast majority of gun owners are law abiding.
I rather doubt the NRA would lobby against a study of the reduction of homicide rate vs gun ownership rates. On the other hand, studies showing how terrible and tear jerking it is when people get shot they very well could. Or even how we can reduce gun murders by reducing gun ownership.
Crankalicious is right. I checked out the article. It is, however, something common for lobby groups to do with elected officials. Much of the ACA was written by insurance executives and the list goes on. This is how business is done in Washington DC.
Yes, I read it, too, after I wrote that reply. And you're right - for good or bad, that's what lobbying is all about. Convincing Congress that your business and your wants are more important than anything else in the world.
readmikenow: That's just more Bozo trump style phony false info you're trying to spread around here, just like his false claims of election fraud in Florida or his false claims of some kind of 'invasion' at the border etc etc etc: He just Lies lies lies:
Bozo Trump's lies are horrendously boring and beyond sickening at this point and that's just one reason WHY he was totally rebuked in the midterm elections and he could conceivably face prison time for his lies:
FYI: Everyone knows the ACA was written by numerous Democratic individuals who truly care about covering ALL Americans for ALL Illnesses regardless of pre-existing ailments and yes insurance companies were involved as they must be, but did NOT write much of the law as you claim:
Republicans constant attacks on our healthcare aka the ACA is just another reason WHY Trump and his republican pals who gave trillions to filthy rich people were REJECTED in the midterms:
BTW: The NRA is in a dire financial situation:"Everyone knows the ACA was written by numerous Democratic individuals" There is much about how legislation is written in Washington DC you do not know. I'm sure you would be shocked to learn about the influence of lobbyists when it comes to laws. Guess what? Supreme Court Justices don't write their opinions on cases either. So, I guess maybe you are better off not knowing.
lol, yeah Readmikenow, i guess you were there when the ACA was written right?
Several contributors to the actual construction of the ACA which includes President Obama, are on legitimate news programs quite frequently, perhaps not the news programs you choose to watch or listen to:
Maybe you can offer us documented PROOF that much of the ACA was written by insurance companies, but until then, I'll believe those compassionate individuals who were actually involved in drafting this critically important healthcare law which has already insured millions and saved the lives of many Americans, a program which Bozo Trump and republican "Mutt" McConnell tried to sabotage every day it seems: But what else is new with the Russian controlled repugnantkins:
We have just realized another terrible mass shooting on republican's watch while Bozo Trump skips an important trip to honor veterans of war because reports indicate, it was raining and he was afraid of getting that thing on his head a little wet, and maybe getting a smudge or two on his face paint: Ridiculous and totally disrespectful to veterans:Randy: In one way LMAOROTF, but in another way, I'm sad.
I believe your intended post was to Jake, PePo.
Sorry Randy, I did mean it for Jake. Oh well too late now. Thanks for the heads up.
Readmikenow: The reason the ACA is over 2,000 pages is because it is a body of laws that governs all aspects of health care complex including insurance, doctors, and patients. I remember when the GOP came up with a 19 page pamphlet that is supposed to replace ACA. The GOP has tried 54 times to remove and replace the ACA and have never been successful. Let's see if they are going for 55 times!
- Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
Peoplepower ;
I truly do appreciate your service and love of country . Our veterans as with your own contributions are seriously our most precious resource in America . I do find your growing up experiences interesting as I once too stopped hunting and shooting , I am lucky to still have family members of both persuasions , those that shoot , hunt or that don't do either .
Mass shootings are another matter totally unrelated to normal gun ownership , Miebackaugh , actually makes a point making the most sense ;"......There is a human nature duality ......The mind is a terrible thing ....." I say we can do absolutely nothing about the human element that is the most dangerous to our society --Mental Illness --either long term or as it is instantly happening . No laws ,no legislation , no police action , no limitations to the acquisition of firearms by the law abiding citizen .
We , the greatest nation in the world are held captive by the lack of any comprehensive mental health system with any effective ability to control the human mind in virtually any situation past , present or future . Of our 320 Million people in America we are powerless to stop a mass killing , No law , no law enforcement , no legislative act , NOTHING can be done to end mass killings . Given our population It is time to accept a new norm , mass killings of one form or another have happened in America for nearly a hundred years . Sad but true.
Another law ; one more restriction that simply inconveniences the law abiding citizen is all that is possible WITH more laws . Those acting outside of the laws care nothing about ANY of these concerns . I suspect anti- gun people know this too as their concerns are simply the disarming of all of us. - Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
Bump stocks, silencers , high capacity mags , short barreled firearms can and are being manufactured and altered in a home work- shop , How is any new gun law going to change this . Ammunition can and is being manufactured at home as well ,
LAWS new or existing will not end any gun violence .
Next ?
Total Banning ?Would you be more likely or less likely to own one of these devices if you faced a long prison term for doing so, ED?
- Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
Anyone that likes the UK's gun laws and crime statistics is welcome to go there , ...........I think ! You better ask first .
The old trite "Love it or leave it" axiom makes its occasional appearance in these forums. Give me a break!
- Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
Randy ,
One , And how is the existing threat of those "....... long prison terms ...." working out in America right now , not so well huh ?
Two, Painted on a barn wall down the road a few miles near here, "America , Love it or leave it ............Chose one ."Ed: Where do you get this notion that America is only made up of gun loving right wing conservative republicans and everybody else is excluded?
America is everybody, the good, the bad, and the ugly on all sides You are sounding like your glorious leader and being a nationalist, which is another term for white supremacy. Trump now has followers of school kids giving the NAZI salute.Hello, Mike (peoplepower73), Miebakagh Fiberesima is also America.
I have a friend an engineer who used to called me America when we meet. Why? Because America and is inseparable! I called him Jack for short (of union jack), he being lining on the side of the British. He realized I was always reading your "TIME" and "NEWS WEEK" magazines, and though my mind is affected. So, Ed, my friend is off tangent. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt.Hello, Mike (peoplepower73), Miebakagh Fiberesima is also America.
I have a friend an engineer who used to called me America when we meet. Why? Because America and gun are inseparable! I called him Jack for short (of union jack), he being lining on the side of the British. He realized I was always reading your "TIME" and "NEWS WEEK" magazines, and though my mind is affected. So, Ed, my friend is off tangent. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt.Miebakaugh,
Respectfully , the ones who are ".......Off tangent ......." In America are those who are attempting the reengineering of our constitutional rights , those who would not just rewrite the constitution but burn the entire US constitution and rewrite it to some similarity to a socialist government document .
All the while denying that the real problem in America is a criminal justice system that has grown totally soft on acts of crime . that we have NO viable mental health system , that during the nineteen eighties [1980s ]our mental health institutions were entirely closed down and the inhabitants were sent out into the streets with nothing but a lifetime allowance and a prescription for mind altering drugs , that their children have been raised on illicit drug addictions like opioids . And that there are so many law abiding citizens with legally owned guns in America that the leftists have zero chance of confiscating firearms .So ,what is the left's solution to gun crimes in America ?The usual , Talk , talk , talk , talk and no action .Hello, Ed, you are welcomed. It can hardly happen that an individual or a party can burn down the entire American constitution. The American constitution is a precious document. American blaze the way for constitutional government. It is the pathfinder for any country of the world that is changing from a military to presidential systems of government. The emerging third world nations have preferred the presidential government to any other because of its unique separation of powers.
Be this as it is, it is very unthinkable to label America is a bad country.
The social system like mental health system that you claim is destroying is quite regrettable. I am not certain of these destructions. But anything can happen when a new government takes to change.
Basically, these changes the politician who won election made reflects the will of the voters who brought them into power in some cases. At other times, it is outright despotic. And the beauty of all these is that America has the checks and balances.
The forum is for gentlemen and women. If one is not careful, we get to calling names, and this will earn a hubber the ban, for say three good days. I am sorry and also regretted it that 'unprovoked' mass shooting that killed innocent people is not peculiar to Great America alone.
Thank you, for your understanding, and good day.Miebakaugh:
Thank you for your common sense and being a gentleman in this forum. I appreciate your objective view from outside of this country. Thank you for understanding. Have a great day.
- Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
Peoplepower ;
Now gun owners are nationalist , racists , nazi's and elementary school brainwashers ? THIS Is exactly why your party never makes any traction politically because peaceful , law abiding gun owners who won't give up their guns to democratic / socialist police squads?
Is there any wonder that your party is in the tank when it comes to any political traction whatsoever ? Any wonder why you have to steal elections to get a hint of political traction in legislating?
You just won the house at the lowest level of seat gains in three decades and call it a win ? You lost the last presidential race to mass corruption , In Florida right now your party is suing to change the election laws after losing there , AND what is your solution to 2020 politics ? Throw more socialists at the election machine ?
Since the nineteen seventies your leaders have said "NO , we don't want to confiscate all your guns " . And at the same time your lies are dead set against telling the truth , while it used to be just handguns , it's now assault rifles , high capacity mags , bump stocks , black guns , youth ownership , .......................Your war of attrition against law abiding gun owners was exposed decades ago.
And you wonder why we won't give an inch ?
Because we KNOW who the real Nazi's are ! - Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
Bottom line in America ; Further restrictive and federal , state and localized gun restrictions have accomplished O in positive results !
I would love to have one explain that phenomena to us all .
Every time there is a "mass shooting " we go around and around the carousel in the firearms debate . What no one on the left ever address' is why the statistical numbers only get worse in the hyper-restrictive no -gun zones ? I will enlighten all of you , the first thing a criminal or mentally damaged mind seeks out is a "Soft Target " to exploit his acts of violence , whether he be criminal , mental of misdirected youth . Soft Targets is all that anti-gunners have created . Soft Targets is all that legislators have created .
Areas of Absolute Gun Bans do not exist anywhere in the world . Perhaps it is time that intellectual liberals turn over their controls of academias minds , turn over controlling the "statistics " created by liberal academia studies , turn over the controlling narrative of the liberal infused news media . Turn over the bullhorns of those who have failed our youth in schools , Anti-gun nanny state professors have failed right across the board to accurately address the mess .
Attempted Socialism loses again in America , there is no time left to save our youth in the circle jerk games that liberal America has been playing , Opioids right now are the leading cause of this mind altering phenomena in America , Want solutions to all this violence , stop drugging your families , your children , our society , start healing minds instead of altering their basic realities .Ed: Your party is in charge and winning, FIX IT., No, you would rather blame liberals for everything with your exaggerated, vitriolic, tangential rants.
It's easy to blame others. It is also easy to be in denial about them coming for your guns. It hasn't happened yet and there have been many chances where it could have, but it hasn't and it won't. You just won't accept it.
There are five things I have learned in life.
1. Change is constant.
2. If a system, organization, or person, does not adapt to change, they will not survive within that construct.
3. Extremism on either side, leads to hypocrisy.
4. Conservatives by their very nature hate change. That is why they are called conservatives.
5, Fear is a great motivator
That's why you can not accept that no one is coming for your guns. As far as tyranny goes, we have a well regulated militia called the national guard that will protect us.
Your glorious leader is using not only the national guard but the regular military to stop that "evil caravan" from crossing the border. Fear is a great motivator and your glorious leader uses it to his advantage to not only justify his inane behavior, but to manipulate the unwitting masses. Thank God he will only be in office for a maximum of six years. But I think he will try to change that as well, like most dictators do.
- Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
Well congratulations , someone figured out that the NRA is a lobbying firm representing America's legal gun owners , Sometimes the anti-gun crowd is simply amazing ! Now , the NRA has as much a right to lobby for our 2nd amendment rights as a medical doctors have for creating or negating regulations having to do with medicine and health care .
The NRA has been around a long time and is going nowhere in spite of the hate campaign being waged against it by Pravda USA . They spend millions and millions of dollars to promote our causes and defend against frivolous legislations , much like any lobbying firm would .
The NRA message has been dead on [no pun intended ] for fifty years in America , the left intends to whittle away at gun rights !
First handguns and " Saturday Night Specials" in the sixties and seventies , 'Semi Auto's in the seventies -eighties , high capacity mags and assault rifles now days .
From the nineteen seventies the NRA has said to all " It is a war of attrition to eliminate our gun rights one law at a time ." And now look ! KABOOM , it has been just that . One lame a$$hed excuse at a time , one proposed firearm feature at a time ,........... all the while explaining to deaf ears because everyone one knows it , our criminal justice system is the real problem . It costs money however to fix that so lets wage a war against a false flag ie..... gun rights !Ed: Well if it cost money to fix it. Then fix it and if your party is not going to fix it, then quit placing the blame on everybody else. As you say your party is in charge and winning, so stop your bitching, complaining, and living in the past.
By saying they are whittling away one firearm at a time, is the ploy that the GOP and conservative call the slippery slope. We can't do this because once you start, it's a slippery slope, and we are all going to die.
Before the Wright Bros, people were killed trying to design and fly airplanes. If they would have used the same logic, you use, we would never have safe controllable aircraft.
It's called innovation. Without that, nothing gets accomplished. Nobody is coming for your guns, by piecemeal or otherwise. But you and others like you are stopping progress by your mentality of fear and blaming others.
Oh I know you fear nothing, except they are coming for your guns. But you don't fear that either, because, you will shoot their a$$.@Both Ed & Mike, the challenge is very serious here. It is also getting interesting, bore and somehow disagreeing.
Owning a gun is a right that is legislated many many years ago in every nation of the world. Right from primitive society when the gun is first discovered or invented. It is like owning a knife. But guns being more lethal and a weapon of war than a knife, (do not tell me here that a knife can be more dangerous or as lethal as a gun). Or our wives would be using knives to butcher us and the kids on any foolish provocation! They would finish every man and kids off the earth, except those who will bow down to their every beck and call!
We use knives, machetes, and the like every day as household stuff. But guns? You can't use it to cut that meat, fish, yam or potatoes, vegetables, and so on.
In the armed forces, you do not fire the gun every day when you are not at war. You use it to detered a criminal, right? So as serious as the gun is, a safe use is still welcomed. If a law-abiding citizen intends to defend or protect himself/herself, the law has made that available. Equally, the law through its enforcement agents can protect a person and its property. It is up for everyone to decide and make a choice.
Thank you, and happy day today.Mieban, I don't think you understand the intricacies of the firearm laws here in the US. Those of us on the democrat side of the aisle want better gun laws which means tighter restrictions on who can own one. Mentally ill and other people who pose a threat to society and to themselves should be banned from owning a firearm.
The Republican side of the aisle are afraid if we ban these people then we want to take all firearms away. Nothing is further from the truth, but they still try to frighten people as they do with the imaginary invading immigrant horde.Randy you are doing MIEBAKAGH57 a disservice by your comment about the mentally ill and threats to society being able to legally own guns.
Even though there are problems with the application of the law, surely you know that federal law already bans folks adjudged to be mentally ill, and a threat to society from legally buying or owning a gun.
You comment carries the message that they are not restricted. Give the guy a break and tell the whole story.
GAHello, GA Anderson, you are welcomed. Thanks for weighing in. I am getting a bigger picture of the issue from your updates. Thanks again.
Miebakagh57: In this country, a large part of mass shootings are committed by mentally unstable people. The problem is, in most cases, there is no knowledge that these people are going to commit these crimes, until after they commit them. It's like testing a match to see if it will light. Once it is lit, it is too late. This is compounded by easy illegal access to weapons on the internet and from the back of cars at gun shows, or guns handed down by family members.
I believe a start would be to ban any further sale of the most common weapons that are used in mass shootings. They are the AR-15 style with bump stocks, high capacity magazines, and the Glock Handguns. This is not going to stop all of the mass shootings, but I believe in if one life is saved, it is worth it.
As Randy said, the republican side of the aisle does not like this because they think, eventually they will come for their guns, which is a violation of their 2nd amendment rights to bear arms. They are not ready to accept or trust that no one is coming for their guns. It is a complex issue, but I believe, if we don't start someplace, we will never even come close to solving this issue.
How many of the recent massacres were due to mentally ill persons legally purchasing guns, GA?
I don't know of any that were adjudged mentally ill - prior to their gun purchase Randy. At least none that obtained their weapon(s) legally. Do you know of any?
You would want an authoritative source to deem someone mentally ill before they lose their Rights wouldn't you?
Surely you wouldn't place that label, and deny Rights on just someone's claim, would you?
GAGA: Therein lies the problem. You are not going to know if a mentally unstable mass shooter is going to commit the crime, until after it is committed. Therefore we need to ban any further sale of the weapons they use. I know it is not a clean solution, but it is a start.
It's not a solution at all because the notion is that by banning a material thing, mass murders won't occur. This fails completely to address the issue of whatever it is causing persons to wish to do mass murder.
But gun grabbers either don't care about the actual problem, or face an inability to think further into the matter. I suspect both.
The Texas church shooter had been deemed unfit to possess such weaponry as he used for his killing spree. If I recall correctly, errors in bureaucracy, or bureaucratic failure allowed him on his way.Wesman: What is your solution to the problem?
More important, what is yours? A repeat of policies that have failed over years and years of time?
You think there is one? I don't think so. I think there are always going to be people who want to just up and kill lots of persons. Random persons. It often doesn't matter to them, although sometimes it does. It doesn't matter how they go about it either. I know what isn't a solution.
If you don't start getting better at identifying who those people are, or what is driving some persons over the edge, then you're completely wasting everyone's time, and making life dumber by focusing on inanimate objects.+1 Attacking the tool doesn't stop anything.
Wilderness: I know it can't be stopped, but it can be reduced. But it won't even be reduced if an effort isn't made, because you people are afraid you are going to lose your guns. It makes no sense to me.
Why outlaw machine guns then? Or cannons for that matter. We can always make mustard gas...…
"I know it can't be stopped, but it can be reduced."
How? By repeating the same old thing that we already know doesn't work?
Why not make an effort that might work? We already know that banning guns doesn't work - that is shown world wide. Can you not find something else, something that might work? Why simply repeat a failed effort once more?
It makes no sense to me to do something again when it has been tried so many times already and always failed. What's that old saying about doing the same thing again and expecting different results?Welllll.... I did ask for clarification - to be sure, but he did say this:
GA
"Therefore we need to ban any further sale of the weapons they use."
Why? So that they will choose a different weapon? This has been tried for years, with a 100% failure rate. Even Australia couldn't make it work.If they used a "different" weapon, other than a firearm, it would be harder to murder so many people, unless of course, they used a bomb of some sort.
What killed the people in the twin towers?
Fire has worked well in Australia. So has poison (is it possible to poison a town's drinking water, or that of, say, a school?) War gases, or some more common gases, come to mind. Bombs of course, and we've seen planes used.
Lots of ways to kill people, even large numbers all at once. Guns are on the bottom end of the list of those most effective, but they are common and easy to obtain. Do we really want to encourage killers to make mustard gas (it isn't that hard, and I'd bet you can google how to do it)?Willderness: And there we have the battle cry of the anti-gun control people, ban everything, ad absurdum! God that ploy is getting so old. That dog don't hunt anymore.
Here we go again. Can you point to a single thing I proposed to ban? You're the one wanting to ban things rather than take steps that might actually alleviate the death toll!
I thought it was a waste of time to point this out Mike, and it was. Good try anyway......
Wilderness: Of course not, so why even try!
I am hoping I misunderstood what you meant Peoplepower73.
" Therefore we need to ban any further sale of the weapons they use. "
Are you saying that if there are any similarities between weapons used by mentally ill folks to commit violence, that we should ban those weapons?
That's what it read like, did I misunderstand?
GAGA: I had already listed the the AR-15 and the Glock as the most popular guns the mass shooters use. I didn't want to list them again, so I stated it that way. Yes I'm saying we should ban any further sale of those weapons, not to confiscate everybody's weapons. Take those weapons off the market to make it harder for the bad guys to get those weapons. We have to start someplace. The longest journey begins with the first step.
Okay peoplepower73. Of course I disagree with that 'solution'. The obvious question is what would be your second step - when mass killers use other types of guns, but that gun discussion has been beat to death ... so I will leave it there.
GAAnd when killers choose a different gun, you will go for them. And again and again and again...until you have taken all the guns, all while saying you don't want all the guns. PP, a child of 5 can see through that strategy! You make an excellent example of why gun owners fear for their guns and their constitutional rights.
Wilderness: What part of banning any further sales don't you understand? How is that coming for your guns? Look here is what it boils down: to do nothing or do something. How about our constitutional rights to be safe?
You are afraid of losing you freedom to own guns. How about the people who have been killed and their survivors losing their freedoms? Every time there is a terrorist attack or a mass shooting, we lose a little bit more of our freedoms..
If you go to any kind of public event now, you have lost the freedom of just entering. Now you have to wait in long lines and have your belongings and your person searched for weapons and live in fear that there might be a mass shooting there.
After the Colorado theater shootings, people have to be searched before entering the theater.
My little great nephew is asking if it is safe to go to school anymore. And you want me to tell him, "Sure it will be safe as soon as the teacher and all the kids are armed." That's all we have to do is arm up the entire country and the problem is solved.
I don't know why I'm even arguing with you guys. You can't do anything any way. There has to be legislation passed and Trump and the GOP will never do that. And all you guys care about is that they are coming for your guns. We will certainly have more mass shootings and more freedoms will be lost as a result of that. While you guys have the freedom to bear your arms...go figure!"How about the people who have been killed and their survivors losing their freedoms?"
How about them? Take ALL the guns and they still die - just who doesn't seem to care as they stick to the failed policy of taking guns?
"I don't know why I'm even arguing with you guys."
I feel the same way. Regardless of how many times solid proof is presented that guns aren't the problem and won't fix anything you don't care - you still insist that if you can only get the guns the deaths will stop. You know better, you just don't care as long as the guns are gone.
GA, no I don't want anyone with a mental condition banned from gun ownership, just those who create problems with the neighborhood and police as have those in the latest cases. PTSD was the excuse for the last guy, although this remains to be seen, and the kid in the Parkland shooting was said to be mentally off and had been reported before. We can stop some of these shootings merely with common sense.
At least we have made some progress Randy. I don't think anyone would argue to allow confirmed, (by proper authorities), mentally ill folks to own guns. And I don't think many folks would argue that some of those shooters did turn out to have a screw loose, (probably a gross understatement). But, you can't draw a straight line from one to the other.
Your point about neighborhood problems and interactions with police would be a good starting point.
So you have a known unstable person... "known" via that "common sense" you mentioned. How do you get them evaluated? Who has the authority to commit them, or recommend they be committed? Who would you want to have the authority to commit you to a facility - and take away your Rights? See where this ends up? Whose "common sense" do we go by?
Sure we need to do something to address this problem. We can start by accurately stating and discussing the details.
GA
Hello, Randy Godwin, I cannot understand all the complexities and intricacies of gun and firearm laws of the US. But thanks for intimating me more on what is held on the democratic side.
Better gun and firearm laws, restrictions, and tight control on who will use such lethal weapons should be pushed well. I for one will not like a mad or sane person aim the gun at my head!
Randy, I agreed with you and others for a tight control banning mental patients, criminals, and kids to own a gun.
How can banning certain unstable peoples in the society from owning a gun prevent the sound mind from owning the gun? Should the law says that all mentally ill persons should be confirmed to a mental hospital applied to the healthy and sound mind? This is hard to imagine. I think it is just fear for it. That is one aspect of human nature. In such cases, we say man grow up, right?
I believe America has the best check and balance in the court system. The Republican can make use of it to stop the complete taking away of their guns should that happen.
Thank you for your understanding.What is a mental patient? Anyone having a single visit to a psychiatrist? Already in a mental hospital? Someone the neighbors don't like?
How do you find the people that should be mental patients but are not? Will you give every person an mental exam each year? Will you require anyone wanting a gun to pass a government test as to their mental capacity before they can exercise their constitutional right? Who will design the test - some political committee that hates guns and is afraid of anyone with a gun?
Until such questions are answered, with an answer appropriate to a country based on freedom of every individual, the cure is worse than the disease.Hey, wilderness, you are welcomed. The issue is challenging with complexities beyond repair. Thanks, for weighing in, and good day.
It is indeed challenging and with enormous complexities. Unfortunately, we have a tendency, a strong one, to look for simple answers and answers that do not mean we must make any changes in ourselves. Only in others; others that should be happy to give up their freedom and rights to placate us.
Hello, Mike, resolving the issue is a serious challenge, and I welcomed it. But can the ban for further selling of these lethal weapons effective? I mean the AR-15 types of weapons. I do not have any reservations here.
On both sides there are fears, that is you're coming for my guns too. This makes the scenario more complex than can imagine. What steps then can be taken to alleviate these fears? I think the way could be a constitutional type of amendment entrenched into the legal document.
How do we save the innocent law-abiding American and others is my concern. God help America!The AR-15 is nothing but another semi-automatic rifle, considerably less powerful than most hunting rifles commonly used in the country. Banning it will do nothing whatsoever to end the carnage; experience worldwide shows this to be true.
Wilderness: Sure, that's why it fires high-velocity rounds that enter flesh at the speed of sound and tumble to make a mess out of persons body, including bones and organs. You have proved my point, there is nothing we can do about mental health without funding and resources. Therefore the next best thing we can do is ban any further sale of weapons I mentioned in my post.
That is the morally empathetic thing to do. Conservatives have hard time understanding and applying empathy. The truth is they don't care about gun control and mass shootings. They just live in fear that their guns are going to be taken away and they are going to lose their freedom. That is what is important to them and to them it is morally just.Hello, MIke, I have realized and noted this fear, and I am at a loss of what can be done to alleviated it. I think also that I had hit something about legislature on the issue in one or two pof my posts and comments. How about your input about how the fear can be lessen to a certain degree? Thank you.
"Sure, that's why it fires high-velocity rounds that enter flesh at the speed of sound and tumble to make a mess out of persons body, including bones and organs."
Sounds just like a 30-06 round, except with half the size and half the energy. Which is what I said, isn't it?
Liberals seem to have a terrifically hard time understanding critical thinking or logic. Instead they rely on empathy to draw conclusions from; conclusions which then have nothing to do with the real world because they depend solely on emotions rather than facts or logic. Unfortunate, but that's they way of the liberal, isn't it?Wilderness: Conservative have a hard time being empathetic because, they have an "I got mine,you get yours mentality and if you can't get yours, that's tough, because I'm not going tot help you."
While liberals believe, I got mine and I'll share it with you to help you, because I can put myself in your place and feel what you are feeling.
Yes, empathy means putting yourself in someone else's place. Conservatives think empathy is a weak emotional response, but it is actually what this country is based on. Just read the preamble to the Constitution. It says "promote the general welfare." What does that mean to you as a conservative? I know what it means to me as a liberal."While liberals believe, I got mine and I'll share it with you to help you, because I can put myself in your place and feel what you are feeling. "
LOL What liberals really believe: "I got mine, so will take from yet a third person and give it to you so you can have it too!".
"It says "promote the general welfare."
So it does. And to the liberal that means promote the welfare of specific individuals, not the general welfare of the nation as a whole. And do it only for today without regard to long term consequences.
But not being a liberal, I find that promoting the general welfare of the nation as a whole is the meaning, and that it is always smart to look beyond the "today" and try to understand what our actions will bring to tomorrow.Wilderness: I beg to differ with you. Liberals don't just want to include specific people, they want to include everybody, including those who need help.
You don't think that liberals look beyond today? That is why they are called progressives instead of conservatives, because they are able "to look beyond today and try to understand what our actions will bring tomorrow," but with empathy and compassion for others as a complete nation. Raising tides raise all boats, not just specific ones.
Hello, wilderness, so what is the way out of the woods?
The AR-15, unlike a hunting rifle, is meant to do damage at close range, Dan. Therefore it doesn't need the extra knockdown power a long rifle possesses. Not many people use a semi-automatic rifle for long shots because the accuracy isn't as good as a bolt action and many shots aren't normally required to dispatch the game--unless the shooter is a very bad shot.
- Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
Has anyone seen my Assault Rifle laying on a park bench ?
One, A semi Automatic rifle's technology is almost one hundred and fifty years old , the semi automatic gun is flawless as it works day after day.in the mud , dirt , snow and dust our troops and out police work daily with this flawless weapon for two purposes , to promote social civility and maintain world peace ."Assault weapon "A fixed and inanimate object who's existence has a comprehensive federal system of checks and balances .
Two , Constructive Mental Health Science ;Thousands of years old , 26% of American deal with some kind of mental health problems . Untold trillions of dollars have been dumped into mental health in US history alone , volumes upon volumes, thousands have been written about it in America alone , hundreds of thousands of therapists are employed in America making billions of dollars annually , with hundreds of thousands of patients coming and going daily ..........
Constructive Mental Health System in America ? A program of volunteer participation most visible by observing its presence in the back streets , in back alleys , under blue tarps , in tents in the trees by the highways , freely walking around in schools , colleges , shopping malls , in the halls of courthouses , laying on park benches.
Ever seen an "Assault Weapon" laying on a park bench ?
Ed: We had reasonable mental health care until Reagan came along and removed funding for it and put mental health patients on the streets. This was all done under the guise of " reducing big government spending."
Well it turns out that we have never gone back to those days. We still have mentally unstable people on the "streets" and most mass shootings have been committed by them because of easy access to guns.
This is how the republicans roll. To them cutting back big government spending means taking money from "entitlements" to pay for their tax cuts "reforms". It turns out entitlement spending is a very minuscule part of the budget. But that is the GOP mentality that we have to live with.
"Just remember our thoughts and prayers are with you." But we are not going to fund mental health resources or do anything about keeping the guns out the hands of mass shooters because it violates our freedom of the right to bear arms. So just live with it.
The truth is as long as the GOP and Trump are in charge, the chances of them coming for your guns is about the same as throwing an elephant across a room. So you are good for at least another six years, or more if the GOP continues to "win."
This IS a major problem in our country today, I'm not going to play the blame game... because this issue could have been addressed better by either the Republicans or Democrats when they had FULL control, but this has been an ongoing and growing problem for decades now.
I would say it is reaching the threshold/breaking-point where we are beginning to see many parts of the country (especially southern/warm states) where the number of those incapable of caring for themselves or functioning in society is becoming prohibitive to support services (hospitals, police, mental health) being able to function properly and as necessary.
- Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
Where have we evolved in the leading cause of gun violence , domestic violence , mass shootings ?
Mental health treatment in America in last hundred years ?
From the above ;
To the below ;
- Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
I don't know anything about football / basketball ! I admit it , it bores me to watch one or the other . What I won't do is stand in a sports bar and pretend I know all about these games and argue the attributes or lack thereof of the players or the games . THAT would be painfully obvious to all .
Owning dozens of firearms , utility and collector grades , I can tell you that many here don't know a thing about firearms at all . Many are good at " talking " specifics " that match most firearms but obviously lack any ability to tell us what differentiates "Assault Rifle " specifics from any recreation firearm specifics , small caliber to large caliber specifics , military or civilian specifics ............
Advice to many here :" Happy Emoting "about your firearm knowledge ,........... Randy Godwin , Peoplepower , Jake ..........I find myself laughing at your descriptions and supposed specific knowledge of firearms , Just like the real reasons and causes of mass shootings , you don't really have a clue about the causation of these shootings or the firearms behind them .
Emote On !I don't recall asking for your advice about your possible gun knowledge, ED. I don't really know if you're a real person or not, much less if you know anything at all about firearms.
Ed: You made the assumptions that I never grew up in a rural area, that I wasn't an outdoor person, that I didn't grow up on a farm, or that I have never been hunting or fishing, including that I never read outdoor life magazines and yet you were wrong on all of these.
You don't have a corner on the market about growing up in a rural area, about wildlife experiences, or firearms, just because you own a bunch of guns.
Now you are making assumptions that I know nothing about how lethal the AR-15 can be in mass shootings and I don't know what the cause of mass shootings are.
Well my friend, I have to tell you I watched 60 minutes last week and it shows how rounds from an AR-15 cause terrible damage to flesh, bones, and organs. .
This is the presentation from 60 minutes. It is 13 minutes long, but well worth the time and it backs up everything I said about the AR-15, and then some. Everybody should watch this. I'm eager to know what your take is on this. Make sure you watch the part about the rounds entering a gel that simulates the human body -Mike
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ar-15-used … 0-minutes/
- Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
Both parties have "tried " everything from restrictions to firearms to tougher on crime ramification , NYC under Rudy did the absolute best with his "Get Tough " on crime campaign , NO PLEA BARGAINS .
Here is the absolute truth , We cannot stop these mass shootings period because we cannot end mental illness , either life long or instantly acquired . We cannot end the absolute stupidity of how our youth chooses to not acquire anger management skills . Anti- gun zealots share an ignorance to the incredible logistics in heir dream of gun banning , at which point most firearms would simply "go underground". Liberals , You cannot be soft on crime in a general sense and simultaneously expect crime to end . That is your # 1 problem .
"Mass Killings " is the result of a stress on humanity because of overpopulated cities , mixing of differing cultures , lack of mental health system , soft on crime ideals , latchkey child raising ,unaccountable personal behavior , If liberals continually demand bans , bans , bans you're not even going to get people to sit down at the table and why should they and for what ,compromise ? - Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
And yet Randy , you never seem to offer anything but one or two line troll notes .
- Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
Peoplepower , The video you posted is interesting in an informational sense however the below picture is a Ruger # 1 single shot hunting rifle in the very same caliber as the AR-15 .223 or .556 military round,
The very same caliber is available in single shot , bolt action , lever action rifles or even handguns , So you cannot for instance ban the .223 bullet that causes such damage without banning additional firearms AND a dozen or twenty similar bullet calibers ?
Certainly the "Assault Rifle " appearance is scaring too many people not considering many , many similar guns and bullets too.Ed. Why can't they be banned? See you guys use the all or nothing at all tactic. Unless you can't prevent all murders, why even try to reduce mass shootings. That's you logic and it is a selfish stall tactic. Remember, the longest journey begins with just the first step.
- Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
But Peoplepower says " Who says we want to ban guns .........."?
Ed: Let's keep this simple. Help me understand why you don't want some form of gun control, where they don't confiscate your guns? I already proved to you they are not coming for your guns within the next six years. I don't know even if you are going to live that long!
Will it cost you money? Do you have to do more work? Do you think you are losing your freedom,liberty, and your pursuit of happiness ? How does it affect you personally other than you think they are coming for your guns? I see that as an irrational motive and also very selfish.
- Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
Ban what ? All of the gun styles that shoot that caliber ? If you know anything about calibers you also know there are twenty or more JUST AS DESTRUCTIVE to the human tissue , yet a simple .22 caliber rimfire for instance is the assassins choice Why? Because it goes through one side of the skull and bounces around inside without exiting at all for maximum damage --Is that dangerous too ?
A simple .22 rimfire varmint bullet ? What about the most potentially destructive round of all , a .12 gauge buck -shot round , would you ban all shotguns ?Ed: What you are doing is just like you hate political correctness. You want me to be gun and ammo correct. You are just confusing the issue with distractions. Again it is the all or nothing at all mentallity that you guys use. You have to start someplace with just one or two and then you build it up.
Far more people are murdered with shotguns than with those terrible "assault rifles". Better ban shotguns.
Giving guns to every Tom Dick and Harry is equivalent to giving monkeys loaded guns. Bad things will happen that would not have happened had they no guns. A shotgun or an assault rifle is a whole different story.
I'm not saying you should ban guns, that's up to your government to decide, just pointing out a statistical fact had every one access to guns.No actually , it isn't ".......up to your government to decide .......", its the second amendment right of the people as strong as the first , the fifth or any of them . The reason America is what it is IS because of these rights and as to yours ? Because you let the government decide your rights ?
Which government is yours ?And these Amendments were handed down by God? They did come from man: https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-11-17/ … -amendment
And it was something that was extremely important at that time. Just like people have been saying things in old religions need to change with time, so does this. There is no threat to the security of the state if individuals have no guns, is there?Actually yes there is threat to an unarmed society , Ask the Jews , the German civilians ,the poles , ask the Russian civilians , ask Cambodia and Laos ...........? The difference is that the US constitution was written by people like you and I for you and I , and not for tyrants .
"Bad things will happen that would not have happened had they no guns."
Such a statement would be better for proof, wouldn't it? Even statistical proof, rather than actual observation.
Unfortunately, statistical analysis says it is wrong, not that it is correct, for the death toll does not go down with fewer guns in a society. There is no correlation between gun ownership rates and homicide rates anywhere in the world.
(There IS a statistical correlation between the number of bodies with bullet holes and the number of guns, but I don't think those bodies care if they have bullet holes or not).
Wildlerness: What part of mass killings don't you understand? With me, it's not about all murders. It is about mass killings and how they go about doing them. Let's try to focus on one cause and effect at a time. All you guys are doing is creating distractions to the main issue by focusing on more people are murdered by shotguns.
I understand that. You just have failed to provide any evidence whatsoever that your tactic of violating the second amendment, in spirit if nothing else, will accomplish anything at all, although you're quite happy to ignore evidence it won't.
But you want to ban all weapons that are commonly used in mass murders: a tiny percentage of the total murders. You want to do this because you believe, against all common sense and all the worldwide evidence to the contrary, that mass murders will simply stay home if they can't go to the corner store and buy (but can still easily obtain through other means) the gun you want to remove from society.
What do you think that says about what you'll want when you DO finally turn your attention to the much, much larger group of plain old murder?Widerness: I didn't say to ban all weapons, I said ban any further sales of weapons that are commonly used for mass killings. You guys are constantly trying to re-frame what I'm saying to mean they are coming for your guns. Nothing could be further from the truth.
How do you tell people they cannot sell their belongings, and how do you tell them that although some people can have a gun, they can't?
And you haven't even tried to show your plan has any chance at all of even saving a single life. When you do, be sure to use world wide statistics. Or those from the US showing that without guns lives are saved. Might want to have a "Plan B" when banning sales of a specific gun doesn't work, too - as we already know it won't, it would seem the smart thing to do.I see this has turned into another gun' thread peoplepower73. To flesh out your proposed preventive measure - and without intending to be argumentative - let me ask this.
You mentioned, (as weapons to ban because mass killers prefer them), banning future sales of AR-15s and Glocks. My first thought is what would you say when mass murders then choose other semi-automatic rifles, and brands of semi-automatic pistols. I do see that as what will happen.
Would the logic of your thought then be to ban future sales of any semi-automatic guns?
Do you think your ban should apply only to retail-type sales, or to personal sales, (like me selling to my brother-in-law), also?
You can probably see where I am going with this, and I think they are valid questions, so let's explore how you see your proposal would work.
ps. I promise no ladders, butcher knives, or hammers rebuttals.
GAGA: I'm not making a proposal. Simply because I cannot legislate anything. This requires work by congress, but we have to start some place. To me it is not good enough to say our thoughts and prayers are with you.
The gun people think any type of gun control ultimately leads to confiscation of everybody's guns. They can quote all kinds of statistics, but doing nothing is also an action.
I have stated this problem many times. Almost all mass shootings are committed by mentally unstable people. The problem is we don't know who they are until after they have committed the act. And as far as understanding their motives most of them are killed by law enforcement or they take their own lives.
The best thing to do would be to give them help, but since we don't know who they are until after the act, how can we help them? The next best thing, in my view is to deprive them of their weapons. Since we don't know who they are we can't do that. The third best thing is to stop any further sale of the weapons they use the most. Yes they will continue to use other weapons that aren't banned, but at least this would be a start. There could be trends and studies developed from that start that would give us information and data as to what the next steps should be.
The federal government has to get involved in this and create uniform laws for all states to follow.
To answer your question about transferring ownership of guns to relatives or others: Why can't guns be registered like vehicles? When the ownership is transferred there would be accountability of said gun.
See the gun people don't won't to do that because they are law abiding citizens and would never commit those crimes and why should they have to be burdened with that extra effort!
Nothing has happened in the past, because congress is beholden to big money interests from the gun industry and the NRA. And nothing will happen in the future for the same reasons. But I guarantee you, mass shootings will continue for the foreseeable future."Yes they will continue to use other weapons that aren't banned, but at least this would be a start."
A start to what? You already said that the gun isn't the problem, you agree that mentally ill people will kill with or without their preferred tool, so what is it a start to? What is the immediate goal of preventing future sales of a specific gun?Well, I was hoping you had given your idea more thought peoplepower73. After all, you did propose it as a first step.
Unfortunately, with this response, your comment does sound like a "Well, we have to do something!" cry - without any real idea of what that something should be.
As for the registration of long guns, that wouldn't stop any murders - even if it did make it easier to catch a murderer, after the fact.
GADon't think there is a single mass murderer that repeated their action. And very few, if any, that do with long guns. Pistols, yes, but then those pistols that are used multiple times won't be in any registration base anyway (except perhaps with a note they were stolen).
GA: You always make me do more research. Here is what I found. This is about The Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) that was passed in 1994 and expired because of a "Sunset" provision in 2004.
It was never renewed because of pressure from the NRA, the gun industry, and the GOP congress. There are pros and cons about the studies performed on the effectiveness of the law. I have included those as well.
As far as everybody asking what a "start" would be. I think the AWB should be renewed and brought up to date, including removing the "grandfather clause" of large capacity magazines and the cosmetic loop- hole that excludes bump stocks. They should also remove any sunset clause and make the law permanent with the provision that it could be updated as necessary.
Here are the two links. You be the judge!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_A … eapons_Ban
https://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-t … -ban-work/
-MikeMike, hopefully you will view that required additional research as a good thing. There are several posters here that cause me to do the same - and I always feel benefited by the effort.
About your links. I am fairly familiar with the AWB, (Assault Weapons Ban), and it's drawn conclusions. But I did look at your links, and here is the gist of what you offered:
From the Wikipedia link the overall gist was that the AWB had little to no effect on crime violence. Some studies say there was a slight decrease, others say there was insufficient data to conclude any effect.
From fact check I found the same thing. Studies being cherry-picked by both sides to present the point they wanted to see. Bottom line, the combined studies ended up with mixed results - no definitive conclusions.
However, you alreay said that, so I am unsure of the point of your links. I agree with you - no studies have shown the AWB to be a success, or failure.
There was one tidbit in both links, but emphasized more in the fact check link, that I think might go to your proposed "first step." And that was this... (from the factcheck.org link)
"... because the banned guns and magazines were never used in more than a fraction of all gun murders..."
"... assault weapons were used in only 2 percent of gun crimes before the ban. "
The point? Assault weapons, contrary to the public perception driven by the graphic and sensational media promotion otherwise, are involved in only a tiny fraction of gun violence events.
Yet, that is the weapon you first focus on to ban. Very roughly speaking, (everybody offers different numbers), assault weapons were only used in approx. 11 of 158 mass shootings since 1982. If you really want to propose a successful ban, it should be on pistols, but regarding a long gun, (AR-15s are rifles - long guns), ban, it would be much more logical to ban all semi-automatic rifles.
Would you go that far to achieve the result you think you might get from banning AR-15s?
Now, about the grandfather clause... Are you changing position on that now? First you specified "future sales" of guns, now you are speaking to grandfathered segments regarding accessories. How far is that from applying that to the "grandfathered" AR-15s?
GAGA: No, what I was speaking to was that high capacity magazines were already grandfathered in. That means they were excluded from the ban. It turns out, almost all mass shooters use high capacity magazines (HCM).
In The fact Check article, it states if those magazines were banned, it would of had a dramatic effect on reducing those killings. And now if bump stocks were banned, it would even have more of an effect.
Look at the Las Vegas Shooter with the AR-15's with bump stocks, and HCMs. He killed 58 people and wounded another 869 who's lives will never be the same. He even had tracer rounds, so he could adjust his arc of fire at night.
The San Bernardino terrorist attack went on for hours, because the police could not even bring them down, they were so well armed with HCMs.
Look at Gabbie Gifford's shooting with a 9mm hand gun with HCM. I could go on and on. But you get the picture, I'm sure.
Why do civilians need bump stocks and HCMs, with tracer rounds?...If they want to play war games, they should join some branch of the military. Yes the 2nd amendment gives them right to own all that stuff, but good judgement and common sense should prevail for the sake of others."In The fact Check article, it states if those magazines were banned, it would of had a dramatic effect on reducing those killings. And now if bump stocks were banned, it would even have more of an effect. "
How could it have a "dramatic effect" on the number of dead when it only takes a couple of seconds to swap magazines? Did the shooting only go on for 5 or 10 seconds?
Or when bump stocks can be made with a home printer? Banning them does NOT mean they are not available, and when one can be printed out at home, well, banning means nothing to someone really wanting one.Oops... good for the goose... good for the gander.
I also considered making that point about how quickly a magazine could be swapped out - in relation to the HCM/LCM, (High capacity magazines/Large Capacity magazines), magazines argument.
But then I stumbled across the Gabbie Gifford story. Turns out the shooter had one HCM in the pistol, but them fumbled and dropped his reload on the sidewalk. At which time the crowd subdued him. So, at least in this case, the HCM made a difference and the 'quick swap' argument fails.
GAThat would make a difference. At least if there are lots of people around that will take notice and physically attack the guy.
Won't make much difference in an elementary school or from the 4th floor window, though.
Mike, I am sensing exasperation in some of your comments to others - exasperation that what you see as so logical, by any measure of common sense, is being rejected.
I hope you don't see my comments in the same vein, but, I, (and probably others), have a similar sense of exasperation that you are refusing to see that there is no data, factual, or historical support for what you you are proclaiming to be common sense point - take the gun and they won't kill.
As crazy as it seems, there is support for a contradictory conclusion - as our buddy Wilderness has been more than glad to point out.
Anyway, let me do a little house cleaning on your facts in this comment before I address it.
The Las Vegas shooter did not wound 869 people. Most sources quote the actual wounded number as 413 to 421. Less than half of your number. Now wait! I am not trivializing 421 wounded lives. I am only pointing out your provided 'fact' was in excess of double the true fact.
*I believe your 861 number, (some peg it as high as 1000), includes both folks wounded by bullets and folks injured in the melee of a stampeding crowd. My only point being your statement was wrong and misleading . I know, picky, picky.
Further, the San Bernardino attack only went on for about three minutes, (and about 100+ shots), not the two hours you claim. Reports say the police arrived about three+ minutes after the first 911 call and the shooters were already gone.So there is nothing to support your claim that "... police could not even bring them down, they were so well armed with HCMs. "
Next, I think we can discard consideration of 'Bump Stocks'." As far as I know the Las Vegas shooter was the only one to use them, and they have already been banned,
Also, the factcheck.org article did not say, (at least I didn't see it in my reading), "... if those magazines were banned, it would of had a dramatic effect on reducing those killings"
What I did find was that it said this:
" Koper concluded by saying that “a new ban on large capacity magazines and assault weapons would certainly not be a panacea for gun crime, but it may help to prevent further spread of particularly dangerous weaponry and eventually bring small reductions in some of the most serious and costly gun crimes.”
I don't have a problem banning HCM/LCMs. But I say that as understanding the public needs to see something done, not because I think they should be banned. I see the small harm to owners of them, and folks that want to own them, as a price that must be paid - not a fair price, but a price none-the-less.
So now, bump stocks are gone, and I can agree to a restriction on HCM/LCMs. Let's get back to your proposal of banning Assault weapons and Glocks.
Can you see the fallacy in that? Can you see that what your proposal must be, to achieve the effect you think a ban on those two weapons would accomplish, is a ban on all semi-automatic weapons?
GA
- Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
Because gun "control" without banning on any level has been and will be entirely ineffective in gun deaths , Because for one the greater problem is mental illness control , two criminal control , three recidivism control , you do realize that recidivist crime is a huge percentage of the gun crime problem right ? Your mass shootings generally happen in "gun free zones " , did you know that ?
Control you criminals = control your crimes.
Control mental health = control insane acts .
Control juvenile behavior= control school violence.
Why am I "not going to live that long ?"Ed: So what are you going to do about all the things you listed? Because again it is the all or nothing at all mentality which is just another way of doing nothing. You do realize that your glorious leader just announced prison sentence reform policies?
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/preside … d=59195616
- Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
Peoplepower , If I were of a mind to kill a mass of people one dangerous act of using a five gallon can of gasoline , a rag and a match would replace all the banned firearms you could round up .
Do you truly think banning all the firearms in America would stop a truly deranged mind ?
"We have to start somewhere ?" .........Start by cleaning up the legal system , make it effective again , actually punish and not reward a crime . - Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
"Ed, why don't you do that "?
Respectfully Peoplepower , More people die of a hundred reasons more controllable than illegal gunfire Peoplepower , like falling from ladders , IT's the tragically misplacing emotions and wringing of hands of old ladies that see only eliminating the bright and shiny nickle plated , evil firearm on the store shelves as cause , cure and case closed to this out of control crime .
Stop sitting on your hands and watching the justice system collapse , stop shaking your head as you observe the out of control behaviour of your children and grandchildren , Continue driving fast through that questionable neighborhood on your way home and not making eye contact with your poorer ,less fortunate city dwelling neighbors .
Mass Killings are the final result of a metastasizing stage five cancer on our society , two dozen or more legal and illegal drugs used daily by twenty percent of the population , juvenile crime , no personal accountability , poor behavior , out of control gangs , fanatical religious zealots , endangered ego's of high school kids being bullied by your children or grandchildren .
"Ed , why don't you do that ?"
At least I fully recognise the reality and don't deny actual problems that contribute to our cultural demise . At least I see the real reasons for this demise right in front of all our eye's . At least I don't objectify an inanimate object to blame for the lousy behavior of my culture .
When I feel obliged to do something about this humanity at the very least I will do something positive , anything besides pointing my finger at an object and saying 'There it is ".My God. I can't believe you actually said more people die by falling from Ladders than Guns. I would say you were irreplaceable, but I know at least one more person in the world who thinks like you.
Go look at that statistics of deaths in the world and the USA , I'm not doing your research for you , ignoring the majority reasons for deaths is your party problem and not conservatives . We see the whole picture without emotionalising them or the effectiveness of the solutions . When you stop "Trumpeting " your party's naivete , you too will gain an insight .
I am not American, thankfully. But, common sense says falling from ladders is something that happens because of one's own fault. Dying because of gunfire is also one's own fault right? Of course it is! Why didn't that person who died buy a gun to defend himself?
Research without common sense is useless because then with all the data in the world the right conclusions could not be drawn.
Ed: You are like the parent who wants to solve all their unruly children's problems at one time, instead of taking them one at a time.
Again, it is the all or nothing at all mentality. I'm not objectifying the object. I'm focused on how that object is used for mass shootings. You are looking at cause and effect at the macro level. I'm looking at it at the micro level. How do you eat an elephant?...One bite at a time!
Almost all mass killings are committed by mentally unstable people. They have nothing to do with all the ills that you mentioned as cause and effect. As a matter of fact, we know very little about their motives because they usually end up dead as a result of law enforcement or they take their own lives.
We don't even know when they are going to commit the crimes until after the fact. So the next best thing to do, in my view, is to try to reduce their access to those objects that they use to commit mass killings. And the reality is it turns out to be guns.
If guns are not available to them, we don't know if they would use other means, but we do know that guns are an efficient killing machine and that is what they want to do. Just look at the Las Vegas shooting.
But the reality is, this administration is not going to do anything about it, no matter how many mass killings there are, because they are beholden to the big moneyed interest of the gun industry, including the NRA. The best we can get out them, is "our thoughts and prayers are with you."
And it was basically the same thing with Obama, except he issued executive orders that were worthless, because state gun laws override the federal laws.
It is a case of the tail wagging the dog. There needs to be uniform federal laws that legislate gun use, not a mishmash of over 200 state laws that allow the illegal trafficking of guns from state to state.peoplepower73, your point seems reasonable and sensible; though federal and state gun laws are in conflict. The buttom line is that many ears will to deaf to your logic. Many thanks.
That's because the "logic" is an assumption that without guns, killers won't kill. Worldwide experience as well as common sense says that is not true.
Wilderness: In case you missed my reply to GA, here it is..
GA: You always make me do more research. Here is what I found. This is about The Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) that was passed in 1994 and expired because of a "Sunset" provision in 2004.
It was never renewed because of pressure from the NRA, the gun industry, and the GOP congress. There are pros and cons about the studies performed on the effectiveness of the law. I have included those as well.
As far as everybody asking what a "start" would be. I think the AWB should be renewed and brought up to date, including removing the "grandfather clause" of large capacity magazines and the cosmetic loop- hole that excludes bump stocks. They should also remove any sunset clause and make the law permanent with the provision that it could be updated as necessary.
Here are the two links. You be the judge!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_A … eapons_Ban
https://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-t … -ban-work/
-MikeYes, I understand you want to ban sales of any semi-automatic weapons. Forget that phony "assault weapon" label - you want semi-automatic guns removed from circulation and are willing to simply ban the sale, leaving tens of thousands of them out there until they fall apart from old age in a few hundred years. The question is, and will remain, "Why?".
Did that ban result in fewer mass murders than we had been seeing? Were there fewer murders overall? If not, why do you want it back? Do you think if such guns are not available at the corner store that a killer won't get one anyway?
You can't possibly believe that if a mentally unstable (your words as I recall) cannot get their weapon of choice they won't kill...so why institute such a draconian measure as to prevent sale of the most popular guns in the country?Wilderness: As I keep saying, the best thing is to help the mentally unstable, but we all know that isn't going to happen, for a myriad of reasons that I have gone over many times.
The next best thing is to ban the further sale of of those weapons. If the Las Vegas shooter didn't have those weapons equipped with bump stocks and high capacity magazines, do you think he would have been able to kill and wound that many people in that short of time? Yes he could have used other means, but they would not have been as effective with the element of surprise that he used to his advantage. With all the mass shootings, they could have used other means. But quite frankly,we don't know if they would or would not have done anything.
It's pure conjecture on your part and your buddies to think that they would have. And to complicate matters even more, we don't know who these people are until after the fact.
I am not in the government and I'm not going to get on the merry-go-round of which what constitutes specific weapons and should be banned.
Further, I can't legislate anything, but congress and the administration can, if they had the will and were not put off by the very powerful lobby groups.
How is it draconian when it only affects the further sale of those guns? It wouldn't affect you at all. Other than your unfounded fear of them coming for your guns. You do know if they were coming for your guns, they would have to pass laws stating such? If you believe in our constitution, you know they can't do that! Who is going to allow passing those laws?"But quite frankly,we don't know if they would or would not have done anything."
"It's pure conjecture on your part and your buddies to think that they would have."
And yet that's exactly what happened in other countries around the world. Take away the guns and killers still kill, just with other weapons. The body count is just as high, whether accumulated during mass murders or single ones.
So when you talk about conjecture, it is you that is merely conjecturing results, not I - I have real life experience to base my opinion on. And as a trial run to see if your conjecture is true, you will attack the most basic foundations of our country; freedom to do as we please and the guaranteed right to weapons. It's not as if you were talking about banning Big Gulps (which didn't work as I recall); you are talking about getting rid of the freedom to own guns and the culture that goes with them.
"How is it draconian when it only affects the further sale of those guns?"
Wrong question. The right one is, was and will remain "What can we reasonable expect from more laws reducing our freedom"? Whether banning the sale of guns (reducing the value of the one you have to zero) or simply taking them, what is the expected result?. A question you have adamantly refused to even acknowledge, let alone discuss...for the very good reason that the expected result is nothing whatsoever.
"If you believe in our constitution, you know they can't do that!"
Tell that to the residents of several large cities, where they did exactly that. Tell it to the people listening to legislators crying out that that's exactly what the long term goal is. PP, you and I both know that the opposition forces to gun ownership will not quit until there are no more guns, just as they haven't quit after RvsW or the right for gays to marry. We have become a country where compromise is never accepted except as a necessary, short term, evil; where long term goals are never compromised and the effort to get exactly what we want doesn't stop until we achieve it. Millions of people would take every gun in the country tomorrow if they could; that it will take a few years instead simply means that it will take a few years. Not that it will not happen.
- Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
You pointed out the second amendment and now read it , the two most important words in it are " The People ".
Yes, and like I said, .. being necessary for a free state ..
I do see your point though, you need arms in case your government or a group of people turn on you. It does make sense, but you cannot say more people die from ladders than guns. More people dying from natural causes does not imply you can feed a few poison. It's not a wise argument to make.
- Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
I have 28 firearms LOCKED up in a dark gun safes , most are as near old as one hundred years , none of them have ever harmed a single soul NOW how is reducing one or two of those going to change even one mass shooting ?
THAT is the condition and situation of most American firearms , locked up by law abiding owners in conscientiously chosen extremely secure gun safes like the safes in your neighborhood banks holding your grandchildren's inheritance ,
You might as well eliminate convertible automobiles for the good that
it's going to do in stopping mass shootings as to eliminate a style of firearm sitting quietly in the corner confines of a gun safe .
Good luck with mass shootings and convertibles .What you really need to round out the collection is a suitcase nuke, and since you don't plan to use it, no harm....no foul! Right?
Yup. The same people do not let Iran or NK get nuclear arms even though they say they are only for defense purposes. I find this humorous, while sad at the same time.
So I'm done with you , you have no clue what you're even saying .
He doesn't. He's just here to amuse himself with word salad.
OP is just a plain old gun grabber. He doesn't care about facts or stats, or anything like that. He wants to grab guns. If the gun grabber is allowed to grab some guns, you better believe he'll soon be grabbing all the rest of them.
It takes armed persons to enforce gun control. It's advocating violence, actually. So the gun grabber has no interest in peace.
Then they'll want everyone's knives. It's just one big circle of idiocy. None of it addressing the problem the gun grabber proclaims to be concerned with. It's very dishonest.Wesman: You are the one who is being dishonest because you are conflating what I'm saying with eventually grabbing everybody's guns. And then you are saying I want to do it by violent means. And then you go on to use the old boring tactic, if you ban guns then you have to ban everything else, ad absurdum.
You're as dishonest a person as I've ever encountered. You don't answer any of Wilderness's questions. You're unable and unwilling because you are just a plain, old fashioned gun grabber. Do you have a shrine to Lenin in your study?
Wesman: If I'm a gun grabber, you are a mass killing enabler.
That's you too. That's what gun grabbers are. They enable mass killings. See the history of nations who banned guns. Oh wait, facts don't matter to you. I almost forgot.
- Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
It becomes more and more plain that over a thirty five year period that anti-gun people are progressively anti ANY gun --- period . There were no "assault weapons "in the 1980's , at that time it was "handguns and high capacity magazines !"
Explain that !
Today it's the hysteria of "assault weapons " , Anti- gun people adjust the details of solutions to fit the timeliness of the situation . If tomorrow there were mass " ray gun" deaths then they would call for banning ray guns .
Entirely lame . If there is such a thing as an 'assault rifle,' then it could only be a military rifle. Civilian rifles can not be 'assault rifles,'as they are only ever semi-automatic.
The purpose of the gun grabbers mislabeling semi-automatic civilian rifles as 'assault rifles' is clear, they want to ban all semi-automatic weapons.
Or, they are just that stupid, and don't know the difference. It's pretty hard to tell sometimes the difference between an idiot and someone doing something pretty devious.Wilderness: Now you are on a rant. You don't care about mass killings. All you care about is your freedoms to have your guns. This is America, not some 3rd world country where they confiscate everybody's weapons.
I don't know about what large cities you are talking about where they took away everybody's guns. Can you name the cities? How is it going to take a few years for total gun confiscation to happen? We have the 2nd amendment that won't allow that from ever happening. You know and I know the 2nd amendment will never be abolished, especially with the SCOTUS being bent way to right for many, many yeas to come.
You are framing me as a villain, when all I want to do is protect people's freedom to live a safe life. You and your buddies only care about protecting your freedom to own guns.
I'm just tired of endless senseless mass killings. But essentially what people in this forum are telling me, tough, nothing is going to change. Live with it; senseless mass killings are the new norm. I'm not buying that. Something has to change. This is America and we are better than that.
I'm leaving for Chicago Monday and look at all the TSA tedium we are subjected to before we can enter an airplane and it is all about senseless killings. Even when you get on the plane, there is now an undercover Air Marshal. And you talk about your freedom to own a gun. You don't think we are losing our freedoms every time there is a mass killing?And you don't care about freedom or rights - just that you can take guns from people.
Now that we've both made stupid accusations, can we continue with honest discussion?
If you're tired of mass killings, then propose something that might work. Or show me somewhere that took semi-automatic weapons from everyone and the people killed from mass murders fell. Show me that the old AWB was effective in reducing death from mass murder - 10 years should be sufficient time to see if it worked (what WAS the result of that law? You never said). But quit trying to pretend that you have an answer that will work when you won't even discuss whether it will or not.
Here's some things that have never been tried and might work:
Required gun training for every high school student.
Required armed guards at every event over 25 people. No exceptions - schools, churches, bars, opera shows, legislative sessions - anything over 25 people.
One free handgun for every person over 21 years of age.
City sponsored target shooting with weekly prizes.
Now, I won't mention costs and I won't go into other problems created, but if we trained and armed the large majority of people I can almost guarantee the number of people killed in mass murders will go down. Almost - deaths by bombing, automobile or poisoning will go up and might be larger than gun deaths.
You won't like these, of course. So suggest something yourself. Maybe yearly mental checks of everyone in the country. Maybe a million secret police, constantly surveilling everyone in the country. But something beyond a repeat of a process that is known to fail every time it is tried.
- Ed Fisherposted 5 years ago0
Peoplepower ,
Mass shootings ......let's ban "assault rifles".
School shootings ....let's ban hand guns
Gang shootings ......let's ban high capacity mags
Domestic violence ..let's ban shotguns.............
Mafia hits ................lets ban .22 caliber
Hunting deaths .......lets ban high power rifles
Remember back when people actually cared about cops getting killed in the eighties and they banned "cop killer" bullets , How did THAT work out well for cops getting shot almost daily in America today ?
Down the road with your one banning victory you start to get a taste of just how far liberal judges will allow you to go AND THAT's why we do not give an inch and yes it's that old saying ," You give em' an inch they'll take a mile ".
It would be SO much more effective if you focused on the real problems of gun deaths criminal recidivism , treating mental health ,the over medication of youth , the under supervision of youth , the revolving door criminal justice system ..........And actually show positive results.
Oh Wilderness. He doesn't CARE about reducing homicides or mass murders. He just wants to grab guns.
These people are all the same. They come at you talking about how they want to reduce violence, but they don't actually care about that at all. They've got one objective only - taking power and freedom from ordinary persons.
I think the OP is really just virtue signalling. He doesn't seem evil to me. Just a common virtue signaling sort of person.Wesman: If I search my soul, I could care less "about taking power and freedom from ordinary persons." I care about people being killed needlessly and we can't do anything about it. I have no power, but I can voice my opinion. That is what this forum is about.
After there are mass killings, the administration says "our thoughts and prayers are with you." Those are worthless sanctimonious platitudes and then the whole issue is forgotten until the next mass killing and then the platitudes start all over again and it is an endless cycle with a pause between mass killings where those in charge forget it ever happened, until the next time. That is the new normal we all have to live with.On this we certainly agree. It is incredibly sad, and makes one wonder, when all we do is cry...and take more guns. A never ending cycle that has no effect and does nothing but placate those that want a disarmed America until the next time, whereupon we do it all over again.
What is wrong with us that we won't do anything but repeat failed actions? Why won't we actually DO something?
Because it means changing ourselves rather than blaming, and punishing, someone else - someone innocent of any wrongdoing but is available to blame?Oh it is a sad deal for sure. You've been shown time and again by the persons with the patience to do so, why gun grabs don't work. So you should, and I mean this seriously, think about real solutions.
Do you think the rest of us enjoy reading about these events? I assure you that isn't the case. Ask yourself what it is which causes this extreme alienation and anger. I'd love to read some real analysis about what causes someone to want to do such things. A solution could possibly be found, and started on then. A mature solution which focuses on the problem, and not a tool.Instead we get: "You don't care about mass killings. All you care about is your freedoms to have your guns". Along with another try at banning this gun or that one, and made up scary names to frighten people into agreeing.
And this is followed by an increase in the sale of those exact guns - ensuring that any attempt to confiscate them from the public would lead to a whole lot of pointless violence and death.
Related Discussions
- 386
Gunman Takes the Life of a 1-year-old Child
by SpanStar 10 years ago
A 1-year-old baby girl shot to death by a Gunman who was shooting at a babysitter carrying the child running away.http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08 … lence?liteI wonder what other countries think of a country who continuously incur innocent men, women and children murdered needlessly...
- 32
What do you think about gun control? Stricter or needs to be more lax?
by JustSimple Info 11 years ago
What do you think about gun control? Stricter or needs to be more lax?This issue always comes up during an unfortunate tragedy, I would like to know what people think. Keep it sensible and respectful please.
- 149
Is it even about the guns anymore?
by Farawaytree 8 years ago
More gun violence very close to where I live yesterday. Most weapons, including guns, are available to anyone in this country at any given time. But what about the people who are using the guns? Are they mentally ill? are they psychopaths? Are they terrorists? Are they all of the above? In any...
- 204
Why not pass Gun Control laws in pieces?
by Don Bobbitt 8 years ago
It has become so tiresome seeing all of the radicals on both sides of the Gun Control issue, eacn proposing some "master plan" to control the sale of guns in America. Why can't we do this in "baby steps"?For instance, assault rifles! Just tell me who can justify owning an...
- 857
The Movie Theater Massacre and Gun Control
by A Thousand Words 12 years ago
I know that many, if not all, of you are aware of the tragedy that took place at the midnight premiere of The Dark Knight Rises in Aurora, Colorado. The "suspect," James Holmes, "allegedly" shot 70 people, killing 12 of them, including a 6 year old girl. He had four weapons with...
- 88
Would you consider a total ban on possessing a gun in America?
by safiq ali patel 8 years ago
If the United States Federal Government outlawed the possession of Guns what would your response be?