Brady is infamous for lumping in suicide with other shootings as it inflates the numbers dramaticlly.
Should I show you NRA number? Would you think they were biased?
The people who commit suicide don't get shot?
It's not inflating the numbers -- they say what the number means.
It is inflating numbers.
Brady was the one one that had the message about "If you keep a gun for home defense you are more likely to have it used on your than use it on an intruder". The message is designed to make you think, erroneously that if you try to defend yourself in your home the intruder will simply take your gun and shoot you. They put suicides into the number.
People who suicide using a gun should not be in a conversation about homicide (which is what we have been having). It is a way to inflate a number but not quite tell you the real story, just the story they want you to tell yourself.
I will say this about all the shootings the list.
Every. Single. One. Of. Them. The. Gun. Did. NOT. Shoot. Itself. A. Person. Was. Responsible. Every. Single. One. Of. Them.
Is that clear? This is, and always has been, a people issue. Guns are tools. They are as safe or dangerous as any other tool if handle correctly or not. It is easier to blame a gun then say people are at fault. It is easier to ban a gun then solve the people issue.
Every. Single. One. Of. Them. Was. Shot. By. A. Gun. Not. A. Single. Person. Was. Killed. By. A. Person. Without. A. Gun. Every. Single. One. Of. Them.
Last edited by Jester; 06/04/2203:09 PM.
Don't blame the clown for acting like a clown. Ask yourself why you keep going to the circus.
On the teacher deal, I think in nearly 100% of the cases the teacher would no longer be thinking about a student. They would be thinking about themself and a room full of students and whould have no hesitation at all if all the chips were on the line.
You take a person who has fired a gun maybe a dozen times in a training situation (I presume the teachers carrying guns would need to take a course but who knows), you then put them in a situation where they have to shoot someone that they know and you don't think there would be any hesitation?
It is easy to imagine in your mind (your being people in general not necessarily you in particular) that you would readily step up and act. But when the stressful situation arises how someone actually acts may be very different.
I can't say that wouldn't happen, but I also feel that if it comes to that moment of shoot or die, most people are going to shoot. But yeah, I can't imagine myself sitting there like a dummy waiting to be shot.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.
And without the car, the drunk wouldn't have killed anybody
Originally Posted by FrankZ
The tool helps the person. The tool does not cause it. The tool helps the person.
This is my point point. The tool facilitates the killing.
Originally Posted by FrankZ
Tell you what, if guns are bad don't own em.
I don't
Originally Posted by FrankZ
Don't tell me as a free citizen what I should own, or what I need.
We do that all the time. You can't own a tank, you can't own a dirty bomb, you can't own cocaine. Do you really believe anybody shoud be able to own those things?
Don't blame the clown for acting like a clown. Ask yourself why you keep going to the circus.
And without the car, the drunk wouldn't have killed anybody
Originally Posted by FrankZ
The tool helps the person. The tool does not cause it. The tool helps the person.
This is my point point. The tool facilitates the killing.
Originally Posted by FrankZ
Tell you what, if guns are bad don't own em.
I don't
Originally Posted by FrankZ
Don't tell me as a free citizen what I should own, or what I need.
We do that all the time. You can't own a tank, you can't own a dirty bomb, you can't own cocaine. Do you really believe anybody shoud be able to own those things?
i agree with you, but i have to be an ass and point out that drug use shouldn't be illegal. someone burying their face in a bag of blow doesn't violate anyone's rights. that's why im not against banning guns, just the specific style of guns, since that tends to be the driving force behind our toxic gun culture.
actually, i'm surprised the pro-gun guys haven't used that argument. there are plenty of pistols, shotguns, and other rifles that can inflict the same amount of carnage, if not more. the issue is that the pro-gun guys think they are entitled to owning anything they want, and that's why people get fed up and just want to ban guns entirely. the gun nuts can't admit the simple fact that these mass shootings are committed with AR-15 because of the perception it brings not only to the shooter, but the victims as well. because AR-15's are a status symbol in the gun community. there are far more effective guns for what they claim to need it for, yet they are adamant about protecting a specific style of rifle for no other reason than "because i can".
Jester, most of these gun guys who post their guns all over social media rarely post pictures of them with the shotty, or a 1911. it's damn near always military style rifles. why? because it makes them look and feel like a badass. again, the perception of owning a badass weapon is the toxicity that pro-gun guys are defending, which is why they end up finding themselves on the wrong side of policies and outrage.
these shootings hardly come from a bolt action or single shot weapons. they come from semi-auto's or gas piston rifles. why? because these guys aren't looking for mass carnage; they want the fear it generates to come with it.
these losers you see around the country with their AR's in chipotle or freaking walmart? yea, if it was just a pistol, no one would care. if it was a hunting style rifle - ya know, the ones people swear up and down were in every pick up truck "back in my day" - no one would care. and that's exactly why those weapons arent used by these psychopaths to commit terror.
now imma need my man Frank to explain to the board why he and other americans need a weapon like this, capable of shooting the 7.62 armor piercing rounds.
"because i can" isn't gonna cut it.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
i promise you, if you think you can justify owning this rifle because you need it for home defense, you just told everybody that you are a bigger threat to lives being lost than the criminal breaking into your house. cause we all know they're gonna hit everything BUT the guy they're trying to shoot at.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
And without the car, the drunk wouldn't have killed anybody
Originally Posted by FrankZ
The tool helps the person. The tool does not cause it. The tool helps the person.
This is my point point. The tool facilitates the killing.
Originally Posted by FrankZ
Tell you what, if guns are bad don't own em.
I don't
Originally Posted by FrankZ
Don't tell me as a free citizen what I should own, or what I need.
We do that all the time. You can't own a tank, you can't own a dirty bomb, you can't own cocaine. Do you really believe anybody shoud be able to own those things?
So you are good with banning something you don't care to own. How gracious of you. I know people that decided to boycott the NFL when Kap took a knee, but what they really meant was they were willing to give up stuff they didn't use anyways as they didn't watch to start with.
You can own a tank.
a dirty bomb is not considered arms, it is consider a a weapon of mass destruction. But even if you could most people couldn't afford to buy the fissile material, that stuff ain't cheap.
Cocaine is not arms. And with the way drug laws are changing, who knows, it may happen.
i promise you, if you think you can justify owning this rifle because you need it for home defense, you just told everybody that you are a bigger threat to lives being lost than the criminal breaking into your house. cause we all know they're gonna hit everything BUT the guy they're trying to shoot at.
Do we all know it? Really?
It doesn't look like one I'd be overly interested in owning, but I don't see why someone that wants to own one shouldn't have one.
Not being an ass towards me. I can see the logic behind legalizing drugs. But I also see a role for protecting people from themselves. But then there is the question of, does it really not hurt anybody else? There is a lot of crime associated with the drug industry. Yet, someone could argue that legalizing it would remove some, most, or even all of the crime associated with it. A complex topic for discussion in another thread.
I said in another thread that I don't know much about guns. I also never said that I am for banning all guns. I do believe that you should have a gun license to own a gun and a special license to own the more aggressive guns - however we as a society decide to define that. I would use some combination of magazine capacity and firing rate. Maybe some other things that gun people would know that I wouldn't
To get a gun license you need to take a safety course and pass a background check. For a specialized license you would need to take an advanced course, undergo a note intensive background check , and provide a reason for why you need such a gun.
Don't blame the clown for acting like a clown. Ask yourself why you keep going to the circus.
To get a gun license you need to take a safety course and pass a background check. For a specialized license you would need to take an advanced course, undergo a note intensive background check , and provide a reason for why you need such a gun.
Just to comment on your points that I can say I mostly agree.
License...that is fine, but it can't be cost prohibitive, not subject to yearly renewals.
Intensive background check...what does that mean? I think if you pass not having any felonies, outstanding warrants that need to be resolved, your age and legal status, you are good to go. I would also say voter status should be the same as it is for gun owners. Both are protected by the constitution, so both should have similar requirements attached if we now need requirements attached to rights.
Special permitting? I suppose that would depend upon what was proposed.
Safety course...I don't have a problem with that with the purchase of new weapons. I don't think people should be required to do anything if they already own a gun. They probably already know what they are doing. Even for them, a safety course would need to show up on their background check for a new purchase. I can concede all of that even though you are targeting the wrong people.
You folks need to concede that guns aren't the problem. People are the problem. Until we figure that one out, this shi....stuff is going to continue.
I will also say, maybe age stepping is what we need. At 18years old you can own maybe a .22 and maybe a few other traditional hunting rifles and or shotgun as well as a revolver. At 21 years old the rifles and sidearms can become semi-automatics. Maybe even have a 25 year old stepping stone for some of the "specialized" items you mention...whatever that means. Maybe it is semi sidearms at 21 and semi rifles at 25.
One item not being mentioned that even you folks down on guns should worry about is the right to privacy. While not specifically mentioned, the bill of Rights, the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 9th all touch on the subject as well as various court rulings.
I don't know that maintaining a data base on people who own weapons isn't a infringement on those rights. I tend to think it is when you get down to it. Just something else to think about. What if the government wanted to keep track of the gay people in this country? The government doesn't need to know who those folks might be and where they live.
My point is we shouldn't be so eager to give our rights away and give up our privacy even if it is on issues with which you or I might not agree, no matter the issue.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.
Uvalde Cops HIDING From Investigators As More LIES Revealed |Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar
the cops keep lying their asses off.
there are no good guys with guns. just guys with guns. what makes someone good or bad is how they use the gun in the incident.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Uvalde Cops HIDING From Investigators As More LIES Revealed |Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar
the cops keep lying their asses off.
there are no good guys with guns. just guys with guns. what makes someone good or bad is how they use the gun in the incident.
I basically agree, but in the context Vers used, there are good guys with guns and bad guys. What they do with them is the determining factor. So using that logic, a gun is neither a good thing or a bad thing.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn.
I'm kind of torn on the age requirement. If we can expect 18yo men to go to war to fight and die for our country using assault weapons, while making it illegal for them to own a semi-automatic rifle at home, just doesn't sit right with me. Maybe a military service exemption?
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul. - John Muir
Uvalde Cops HIDING From Investigators As More LIES Revealed |Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar
the cops keep lying their asses off.
there are no good guys with guns. just guys with guns. what makes someone good or bad is how they use the gun in the incident.
I basically agree, but in the context Vers used, there are good guys with guns and bad guys. What they do with them is the determining factor. So using that logic, a gun is neither a good thing or a bad thing.
but the gun was designed to do what? at minimum, neutralize the target. for defense, defend. for offense, destroy.
and this is what i'm talking about from my last post. the word is anthropomorphism. attributing human characteristics to non-humans — gods, animals, or inanimate objects.
and boy does our gun culture do that very thing when it comes to certain styles of weapons. it's no different than when we refer to our cars as 'she', or like "come ob, baby, start!! that a girl!!"
for a lot of people in this country, a gun isn't simply a gun. it's more than that. it gives these dudes confidence; in some cases arrogance. like alcohol giving people "liquid courage".
that's why i always post this sentence on this board: everyone is a law-abiding citizen, until all of a sudden, they aren't.
being a law-abiding citizen neither makes you good or bad; it just makes you normal. what you do in a situation with your gun determines whether or not you're good or bad.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
This is an attempt to clarify my point about it not being smart to make it harder for good guys to get guns.
There are so many guns in circulation. Does anyone really believe that a person who wants to purchase a gun for bad intentions will not be able to get one? Seriously? On the other hand, there are people like my wife who shot a gun when she was younger, but in no way would she make time to go through all the things that Jester proposed. I used to go to Ohio every summer to help take care of my mother and tend to the home we still owned up there. We purchased a gun she could easily handle and provided her w/some home defense if an intruder entered the home while I was far, far away.
I'm okay w/some stricter laws, but we need to be very careful about how we proceed.
Furthermore, while I am okay w/stricter laws, I can see how many gun owners are apprehensive about changing the laws because of how once the ball gets rolling, where does it stop? To use an analogy of sorts. I supported removing the Chief Wahoo logo because I thought it was racist, but some argued that it would not stop there. Now, all of a sudden the name "Indians" is offensive and is replaced w/some dumb name. Once certain people get their way, they want to take more and more away.
Zealots on either side ruin things for those who want to cooperate and work in harmony rather than dictate their views on others.
Vers, the issue with that argument is that you can literally apply that logic to anything in this country.
we made murder illegal. doesn't stop anyone from murdering somebody. we made drunk driving illegal. doesn't stop anybody from driving drunk. by that argument, what's the point of any laws if people are gonna break them anyway? see the rabbit hole there?
when it comes to gun violence - whether its mass shootings, gang related, domestic violence, etc - all our laws are reactive. we have very little proactive laws that can help. no, it will not eliminate gun deaths. but if those proactive policies drop the death count by 20%, it's worth it.
the reason guns are talked about and not other "tools" is because all you have to do is point and shoot. yes, somebody can attack a bunch of people with a knife, but guess what? it's a hell of a lot less likely that everybody is gonna start running. i guarantee most of us dudes on this very board would try to stop some clown with a knife without hesitation.
the gun is instant. im not Neo in the matrix; i can't dodge bullets. that's why most suicides in this country are done by guns. just pull the trigger. every other method requires a real concerted effort to follow through with it. i can't do a drive by with a knife. I'm not mongolian so i can't do a drive by using a bow and arrow, either.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
I agree w/you for the most part, Swish. I am not arguing against your points. I just don't think it's a good idea to make it hard for people to purchase a gun for home defense. Also, your points about drunk driving, domestic violence, etc are good ones. I would also add being able to purchase illegal drugs like Meth, Horse, etc. They are illegal, but there are plenty to go around. Guns fall into the same category when it comes to availability. Criminals will have an easier time getting a gun than those who just want to protect their homes.
There are no easy answers here and I don't believe there are many right or wrong answers. One thing we can both agree on is that we have a lot of messed-up mother......... running around loose.
come on bro. you and i and peen and others are having a dope convo. we're here to debate and argue, as long as it doesn't go overboard. we're all good here.
the issue with the gun laws is that if you're a law abiding citizen, the restrictive gun laws won't have much effect on you anyway. does a 24 hour wait time until purchasing really hurt anyone? it's more of an inconvenience, but it's not that restrictive. most of the restrictions would affect young "adults"; basically kids who just made the legal adult age. as you well know, someone turning 18 doesn't make them close to being an "adult" in real life, just legally. 24 hour wait period would help prevent young men for acting out on raw emotion in the heat of their internal conflicts. will it stop every shooting? no. but it will lower the rate at which these shootings occur.
i also think a ban on military style weapons helps reduce the toxicity around guns in this country. pistols are still available, as well as shotguns, bolt action rifles, etc. remember, the style of weapon is what these crazies want, because they want the perception of fear and terror that comes with it. there are plenty of guns on the market that are effective for home defense that doesn't require it looking like you're gonna invade Ukraine.
the big restriction i want to see is a complete ban on this ghost guns. the fact that people can legally 3D print a gun in their house without any oversight is pathetic.
the thing that will absolutely reduce gun violence in this country is addressing poverty, mental health, and police follow through on domestic violence cases.
but since we have too many people who don't want to increase government spending on those issues, placing restrictions on the gun itself is the only path we have left to try and reduce gun violence.
it's like abortions, right? sure, we'd love to live in a society where women aren't getting abortions, but if we addressed the structural and societal issues in this country, the rate of abortions literally reduces itself without direct action. but we don't want to do any of that. we are obsessed with combating the symptoms instead of the root causes in american society, because we care more about the perception of reality instead of actual reality.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
that's why i always post this sentence on this board: everyone is a law-abiding citizen, until all of a sudden, they aren't.
The corollary to this is "Everyone is a criminal, some just have not committed a crime yet". That is not what freedom is.
I've been doing some data research with data from the Gun Violence Archive. I have heard in the past and the numbers I have been able to pull suggests that AR pattern rifles are used in just 2.5% of mass shootings. They get a lot of press, but the media has portrayed this idea they are the only weapon used in mass shootings and that does not bear out.
So the AR-15 as we know it now was not used in battle. Once Colt bought the rights to it, it became the M16 for the military version.
The civilian semiautomatic version is not a battle rifle.
You are hilarious. What has been said and is true no matter how much you twist it, is that this rifle was designed for military use. It was designed strictly for the purpose of killing people. It was only changed to semi auto to make it a legal weapon for civilians to purchase.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
that's why i always post this sentence on this board: everyone is a law-abiding citizen, until all of a sudden, they aren't.
The corollary to this is "Everyone is a criminal, some just have not committed a crime yet". That is not what freedom is.
thank you for posting this. proactive gun laws address my statement and yours. by having proactive laws, we reduce the amount of both law abiding and criminals from committing violent acts with guns. thanks for supporting my argument, bro.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
that's why i always post this sentence on this board: everyone is a law-abiding citizen, until all of a sudden, they aren't.
The corollary to this is "Everyone is a criminal, some just have not committed a crime yet". That is not what freedom is.
thank you for posting this. proactive gun laws address my statement and yours. by having proactive laws, we reduce the amount of both law abiding and criminals from committing violent acts with guns. thanks for supporting my argument, bro.
but i am free. i'm trying to ensure our american children can grow up and be free themselves.
kinda hard to do if they're dead from a gunshot wound.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
So the AR-15 as we know it now was not used in battle. Once Colt bought the rights to it, it became the M16 for the military version.
The civilian semiautomatic version is not a battle rifle.
You are hilarious. What has been said and is true no matter how much you twist it, is that this rifle was designed for military use. It was designed strictly for the purpose of killing people. It was only changed to semi auto to make it a legal weapon for civilians to purchase.
Which gun was designed for planting petunias? Of course guns are designed to kill things, not just people. That's why they are a useful tool for defense. So a military weapon was changed for civilian use but you still contend it is a military weapon?
I bet you think when someone paints number on the side of their car they suddenly are driving a NASCAR car should only be on a track too.
I am not sure making it really hard for the good guys to get a gun while the bad guys will always have access to guns is a great idea.
How is anyone trying to make it "really hard" for good guys to get guns? Does requiring someone to take a safety course to insure they know how to properly handle a firearm make it "really hard"? Does extended background checks make it "really hard"? I mean if they are "good guys" that shouldn't make it "Really hard", right?
I'm not sure what it is that you think is being proposed that makes it "really hard".
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
I'm kind of torn on the age requirement. If we can expect 18yo men to go to war to fight and die for our country using assault weapons, while making it illegal for them to own a semi-automatic rifle at home, just doesn't sit right with me. Maybe a military service exemption?
If someone does a three year enlistment they are 21 when they get out of the military. But I guess if there's a two year enlistment as of now the point about a military service exemption makes perfect sense to me for any former military. Based on an honorable discharge.
But actually the point you made about 18 being the age a person can serve in the military is valid. But I would like to point out that the conditions in the private sector and the military are totally different. In the military these troops are trained in carrying, firing, safe handling, cleaning and all aspects of those weapons before they go into active duty. In the private sector, as of now an 18 year old can walk into a gun store, buy the rifle and ammo, load it and fire with no training. Those are two very different things.
I mean if you wish to draw the stark contrast in the difference between the military and the private sector, in the private sector a person isn't even deemed responsible enough to buy alcohol until they're 21, much less carry a weapon capable of killing dozens of people in a minute or two.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
does a 24 hour wait time until purchasing really hurt anyone? it's more of an inconvenience, but it's not that restrictive.
I'm a firm 2A believer, but there are 3 areas of control I can get behind.
1.) A limit on magazine capacity. No one should be able to fire off 30 rounds, flip the taped mag over and fire 30 more.
2.) Improving background checks. As it stands, anyone that's been "pink slipped" (admitted inoluntarily) to a psychiatric unit is unable to purchase a firearm. But this doesn't always show up on a background check. I know for a fact that certain psych facilities do not report all of them, and the vehicle for reporting is difficult and cumbersome. This can be greatly improved for efficiency. Same goes for criminal past. I do NOT think that everyone with a psychiatric diagnosis should be prevented from owning firearms. I do think that a psychiatric professional should be able to report a concern for those that haven't been committed, but I also think there should be a system where the individual can contest it.
3.) And as what Swish mentioned above, a short waiting period to assure the thorough background check was complete and to deter impulsive acts. There was a Simpsons episode that bore this out:
Homer: "I'd like to buy this gun!"
Gunshop owner: "Ok. You can pay now, and there's a 5 day waiting period to get your gun."
Homer: "But I'm mad NOW!"
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul. - John Muir
They are illegal, but there are plenty to go around. Guns fall into the same category when it comes to availability. Criminals will have an easier time getting a gun than those who just want to protect their homes.
And that makes sense. IF most of these mass shooters were criminals before they acted. But for the most part they are not. Most of them buy their guns legally or take them from their homes because their parents are not responsible gun owners and these young people have easy access to them. These are often times suburban kids who would have no idea how to purchase such a weapon on the black market.
As has been mentioned, we can make up excuses to do nothing. We can say it will not solve all murders. And it certainly won't. But how many mass shootings need to be prevented by some common sense gun reform to make it worth it?
I'm just curious. What are these laws you speak of that made it so hard for your wife to have one for home protection? Unless you plan to carry a gun all you need to purchase one for home protection is a simple background check at the time of purchase. No other requirements are needed to purchase a gun and keep it on your home. You never were required to do anything more than basic safety course to carry one. But then carrying one isn't for "home protection". None of that is hard or difficult.
Just to be clear, I'm not for banning the sales of any of these weapons. I'm for making our schools more secure by having state of the art metal detectors at the entrances and having trained former military and former police officers in our schools. I'm for raising the age of those allowed to be such weapons to 21. Many of these shootings are committed by people between the ages of 18-20.
I am however tired of hearing the excuses why we should do nothing because "criminals can still get guns". Yeah, well like I said, most of these shooters are suburban kids who have no idea how to buy guns on the black market.
Or shrugging it off by blaming conditions that exist all over the globe like mental health and violent video games for the problem. Every nation deals with those same problems but we are the only nation enduring such a plague of mass shootings anywhere close to this level.
They're just on the list of excuses why we should do nothing and not even attempt to slow down this slaughter of our children............
A Disturbing New Pattern in Mass Shootings: Young Assailants
Six of the nine deadliest mass shootings in the United States since 2018 were by people who were 21 or younger, a shift from earlier decades.
I am not sure making it really hard for the good guys to get a gun while the bad guys will always have access to guns is a great idea.
How is anyone trying to make it "really hard" for good guys to get guns? Does requiring someone to take a safety course to insure they know how to properly handle a firearm make it "really hard"? Does extended background checks make it "really hard"? I mean if they are "good guys" that shouldn't make it "Really hard", right?
I'm not sure what it is that you think is being proposed that makes it "really hard".
I'll tell you what.
Take the "safety" courses you must take in HI to get a carry permit and when you get your permit there you can tell us how it is not infringement.
Obstacles to ownership (keep) or carry (bear) are infringements. When governments can say no to a right it is a privilege. We've covered this, many times. Licensing/registration and fees are way to ban or restrict without outright banning or restricting. I understand you believe the government has your best interests at heart, I don't.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
