'Many killed' in shooting at Walmart in El Paso; suspect in custody

[mogandave]

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

People may have a right to bear arms.  If they choose to exercise this right they have to do so responsibly.  The government has no obligation to train them, they have an obligation to get trained, at their own expense.

 

Universities already have methods to screen applicants.  Didn't you know that?

 

A regressive tax that make it easier for the rich to have guns than the poor. I guess it if you think crime results from poverty. it makes sense to keep guns out of the hands of the poor.

 

The universities take whoever they want, and the government will foot the bill for any student for however long it takes to get whatever degree the student wants. Anyone can apply to any collage they want, any time they want, and if they get accepted, the government will pay for it. Perfect.

 

 

 

 

 

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

 

A regressive tax that make it easier for the rich to have guns than the poor. I guess it if you think crime results from poverty. it makes sense to keep guns out of the hands of the poor.

 

The universities take whoever they want, and the government will foot the bill for any student for however long it takes to get whatever degree the student wants. Anyone can apply to any collage they want, any time they want, and if they get accepted, the government will pay for it. Perfect.

 

If you are so concerned about the poor people's ability to afford gun ownership, why don't you advocate government subsidies for guns?

 

You are the one who said the government should provide free gun training.  I merely asked if that should also apply useful education.  Now you are clearly trying to derail the topic, again.

Edited August 6, 2019 by heybruce

[Stargeezr]

The NRA are still against back ground checks, as they will lose money if they cannot sell to everyone, nut jobs and all..  greedy NRA. Sadly I do not think anything will change as so many have that steadfast belief in the right to bear arms. or have weapons, like a quick firing assault rifle or machine pistol.

Geezer

[wayned]

1 hour ago, Stargrazer9889 said:

greedy NRA

The NRA is allowed to operate as a non profit organization, but they actually are lobbyists for the firearms manufacturers heavily funded by them and their members. The Feds should end their non profit status and put them in the same bucket with other lobbyists.

[mogandave]

If you are so concerned about the poor people's ability to afford gun ownership, why don't you advocate government subsidies for guns?
 
You are the one who said the government should provide free gun training.  I merely asked if that should also apply useful education.  Now you are clearly trying to derail the topic, again.

And you still refuse to discuss it, so here we are.

[metisdead]

Off topic posts have been removed. 

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

And you still refuse to discuss it, so here we are.

I'm willing to discuss the Walmart shooting and debate solutions to the general problem of gun crime and mass shootings.  This isn't the topic to discuss free college education or government subsidies for gun ownership.

[mogandave]

I'm willing to discuss the Walmart shooting and debate solutions to the general problem of gun crime and mass shootings.  This isn't the topic to discuss free college education or government subsidies for gun ownership.

Fair enough.

Banning “assault rifles” is a popular gun control measure which you advocate, and which I am open to.

My concern is how the government will objectively define assault rifles, do you have any idea?

[heybruce]

17 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

Fair enough.

Banning “assault rifles” is a popular gun control measure which you advocate, and which I am open to.

My concern is how the government will objectively define assault rifles, do you have any idea?
 

Restrictions on the capacity of clips/magazines seems the most reasonable approach.  Any hunter who needs more than five rounds in his rifle shouldn't be hunting.  Nobody needs a thirty round clip for home defense, thirty round clips are for people who get some kind of ego rush from "spray and pray" shooting.  Not a good thing for home defense in an urban setting.

[mogandave]

32 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Restrictions on the capacity of clips/magazines seems the most reasonable approach.  Any hunter who needs more than five rounds in his rifle shouldn't be hunting.  Nobody needs a thirty round clip for home defense, thirty round clips are for people who get some kind of ego rush from "spray and pray" shooting.  Not a good thing for home defense in an urban setting.

Is that for all rifles or just semi-automatics?

 

While I agree the thirty round thing is odd, I don't really limiting clip-size as doing much given they are interchangeable. Instead of killing 20 one might only kill 10, which is good, but it would have little or no affect on the vast majority of gun deaths.

 

Enforcing it beyond just stopping sales would be a nightmare.

 

[watcharacters]

14 hours ago, 7by7 said:

14 hours ago, mogandave said:

Most states already have background checks, but expanding them may stop a few shootings, but to take away someone's rights, you would have to have something pretty solid. 

What is more important to you; the right to own a gun or the right for innocent people not to be shot dead whilst going about their innocent daily business like shopping?

 

Gun nuts are committed to their agenda.

 

[mogandave]

 

Gun nuts are committed to their agenda.

 

 

And what is their agenda?

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, mogandave said:

Is that for all rifles or just semi-automatics?

 

While I agree the thirty round thing is odd, I don't really limiting clip-size as doing much given they are interchangeable. Instead of killing 20 one might only kill 10, which is good, but it would have little or no affect on the vast majority of gun deaths.

 

Enforcing it beyond just stopping sales would be a nightmare.

 

To keep things simple and reduce the opportunity for loopholes the size restriction should apply to all guns.  I don't think limiting the number of rounds that can be fired from a bolt or lever action rifle before reloading would be much of an imposition on hunters.  Most of these weapons aren't designed for high capacity.

 

The Dayton shooter killed nine people in under a minute with a ridiculous high capacity magazine that allowed him to spray bullets in great number.  Stephen Paddock killed 58 people and wounded 422 in Las Vegas with high capacity clips.  Limiting these clips to five rounds would have slowed them down considerably and greatly reduced the carnage.

 

Making high capacity clips/magazines illegal would not prevent mass shootings, but the prospect of only get off a few shots before having to pause and reload might deter a few nutcases.  Even if they aren't deterred it would limit the damage they could accomplish.

 

Making high capacity clips/magazines illegal also would not eliminate those that are already out there right away, but it would make it harder to get them in future.  Entrenched problems rarely have quick fixes, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be fixed.

 

The vast majority of gun deaths are not mass shootings, which is why better background checks, requiring safety training and licenses, registering guns and prosecuting people who handle them irresponsibly would also need to be part of the solution. 

[mogandave]

2 minutes ago, heybruce said:

To keep things simple and reduce the opportunity for loopholes the size restriction should apply to all guns.  I don't think limiting the number of rounds that can be fired from a bolt or lever action rifle before reloading would be much of an imposition on hunters.  Most of these weapons aren't designed for high capacity.

 

The Dayton shooter killed nine people in under a minute with a ridiculous high capacity magazine that allowed him to spray bullets in great number.  Stephen Paddock killed 58 people and wounded 422 in Las Vegas with high capacity clips.  Limiting these clips to five rounds would have slowed them down considerably and greatly reduced the carnage.

 

Making high capacity clips/magazines illegal would not prevent mass shootings, but the prospect of only get off a few shots before having to pause and reload might deter a few nutcases.  Even if they aren't deterred it would limit the damage they could accomplish.

 

Making high capacity clips/magazines illegal also would not eliminate those that are already out there right away, but it would make it harder to get them in future.  Entrenched problems rarely have quick fixes, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be fixed.

 

The vast majority of gun deaths are not mass shootings, which is why better background checks, requiring safety training and licenses, registering guns and prosecuting people who handle them irresponsibly would also need to be part of the solution. 

120 year old model '94 has nine shots and over 5m were made

 

I agree it would save a few lives, but at a pretty high cost. Again, most clips are pretty easily extended with a minimum of metalworking skills, and people will still be buying them from China.

 

In CA you have to have a background check every time you buy ammo. I would rather see a more extensive background check, but individuals should only have to pass it once every five years or so. If you get involved in some jackassery, your name pops up as having purchased a weapon. 

 

Personally, I think the only gun control measure that would have any significant impact would be full confiscation.

 

[heybruce]

7 hours ago, mogandave said:

120 year old model '94 has nine shots and over 5m were made

 

I agree it would save a few lives, but at a pretty high cost. Again, most clips are pretty easily extended with a minimum of metalworking skills, and people will still be buying them from China.

 

In CA you have to have a background check every time you buy ammo. I would rather see a more extensive background check, but individuals should only have to pass it once every five years or so. If you get involved in some jackassery, your name pops up as having purchased a weapon. 

 

Personally, I think the only gun control measure that would have any significant impact would be full confiscation.

 

Trying to nitpick around the details?  100 year old weapons could be grandfathered it.  Lots of illegal things can be made or imported but that doesn't mean they should be legal.  I didn't suggest a background check on buying cartridges.

 

These and other details can be worked out.  The point is that making high capacity weapons illegal, requiring safety training and licenses, and registering guns would reduce the severity of mass shootings and overall gun crime.

[BritManToo]

18 hours ago, heybruce said:

Making high capacity clips/magazines illegal also would not eliminate those that are already out there right away, but it would make it harder to get them in future.  Entrenched problems rarely have quick fixes, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be fixed.

The whole point in the right to bear arms, is to defend yourself from a tyrannical government.

So you need high capacity rifles to defend yourself from the government military forces.

 

Might as well just remove the second amendment.

Good luck collecting the guns you don't want people to have, it would be 'Wako' every day for a year or more.

Better start recruiting more agents in the ATF, they will need plenty of replacements.

Edited August 8, 2019 by BritManToo

[BritManToo]

3 minutes ago, heybruce said:

However much has changed since the 18th century.  Somewhere along the lines the part of the second amendment about the "well organized militia" was forgotten, and all anyone focuses on is "the right to bear arms".  I'm surprised no one has argued for the right of civilians to have chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.  These are "arms", aren't they?

So you want to rewrite the constitution as it's no longer relevant?

[Sujo]

1 minute ago, BritManToo said:

So you want to rewrite the constitution as it's no longer relevant?

Thays what usually happens. They are called amendments.

[heybruce]

56 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

So you want to rewrite the constitution as it's no longer relevant?

It makes sense to rewrite those parts that are no longer relevant, don't you think?

 

The original authors recognized that they were doing something with little precedent, that they might not get everything perfect, and that they could not predict the future needs of the country.  That is why they allowed for amendments to the constitution.  There have been 17 since the first 10 Bill of Rights amendments.

[mogandave]

11 hours ago, heybruce said:

Trying to nitpick around the details?  100 year old weapons could be grandfathered it.  Lots of illegal things can be made or imported but that doesn't mean they should be legal.  I didn't suggest a background check on buying cartridges.

 

These and other details can be worked out.  The point is that making high capacity weapons illegal, requiring safety training and licenses, and registering guns would reduce the severity of mass shootings and overall gun crime.

I'm not trying to nit-pick, I just see that the capacity limits would have a very high cost and very little benefit. 

 

California already requires background checks to buy ammo, every time you buy it. "Expanding" background checks sounds great, and I am not against it, but I think restructuring it makes much more sense. Why should a background check be done for every firearm, much less ever piece of ammo? Would it not be a much better use of recourses and make more sense to check, qualify and (as you have recommended) license individuals and then let them buy what they want? Then you can make it illegal for anyone to sell guns or ammo to anyone without a license.

 

I'm not real familiar with the bill the house passed, but I believe about all it does is compel non licensed sellers (generally individuals) to do background checks. It probably includes a bunch of enforcement pork as well. I would much prefer something be done to improve the checks, not just made more frequent. Does It not seem like most of these nut-sacks buy their weapons legally, after having passed background checks?

 

Back to high capacity clips. I am not particularly opposed to this, but again, I see very little benefit. I agree that in some mass shooting situations the victim count would be reduced, but I don't see how it would reduce overall gun crime. I am not trying to be argumentative, I just do not see it. I believe virtually all gun crimes are robberies that involve hand guns. If I'm robbing a liquor store, does it make a lot of difference to the clerk if my 45 has a five round clip or a ten round clip?

 

 

[mtls2005]

Reading a bit about the victims I was struck at how many were elderly. One victim was 90 years old, another 86, and many 60-70 YO.

 

A German national, Alexander Gerhard Hoffman, 66, was also killed.

 

Not sure these folks were the "invaders" Crusius was looking to kill?

 

 

Maria Flores, 77, and Raul Flores, 77

 

Raul and Maria Flores retired in El Paso two decades ago after raising their family in Southern California, according to The Washington Post. The couple met in the Mexican city of Ciudad Juárez and had been married for 60 years.

 

On the day of the shooting, they were at Walmart purchasing airbeds for visiting relatives, the Post reported.

 

"They didn't deserve to go this way, but for me, I take comfort in knowing that they went together," Raul Flores Jr., the couple's oldest son, told the newspaper.

 

https://www.hppr.org/post/heres-what-we-know-about-victims-el-paso-walmart-shooting

[jvs]

54 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

While I do not "...really think that armed civilians will prevent a tyrant backed by a modern army from seizing power... I absolutely believe armed civilians could successfully overthrow such a tyrant after the tyrant had sized power.

 

The general population does have weapons that are generally comparable to what the military has that the military can actually use against them without destroying the country.

 

I would bet my 401k against one month of your retirement benefit that if Trump pushed legislation to start confiscating guns the left's reversal on the second amendment would be immediate. 

 

I'm not clear how any of the coups in Thailand relate to the discussion, would you expand?

Who or what would that tyrant be?

[mogandave]

10 minutes ago, jvs said:

Who or what would that tyrant be?

Jussie Smollett

[Sujo]

To praphrase Trump.

 

Ban all guns till we can work out whats going on.

[mogandave]

To praphrase Trump.
 
Ban all guns till we can work out whats going on.

To paraphrase the the President that fundamentally transformed the United States of America:

“We do not have time for this kind of silliness.”

[jvs]

1 hour ago, mogandave said:

Jussie Smollett

Yes that is what i thought,strong argument.

[mogandave]

1 minute ago, jvs said:

Yes that is what i thought,strong argument.

Yeah, well if I could predict the future, I would not be dicking around on a chat board.

 

Is not Trump a tyrant/dictator/hitler  that is going to try and stay in office if he loses the election?

 

 

 

 

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, mogandave said:

Yeah, well if I could predict the future, I would not be dicking around on a chat board.

 

Is not Trump a tyrant/dictator/hitler  that is going to try and stay in office if he loses the election?

 

 

 

 

I think "trump" is the only president in U.S. history where we really do need to worry about that happening. That's why it's important to beat him SOUNDLY. A thin win would be very risky as we already know based on his past behavior that he will make up stories about millions of illegal votes. Rigged! We also know for a fact if he isn't reelected he is open to indictment, conviction, and prison. So to say he is very motivated to win no matter what is an understatement. 

[mogandave]

19 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I think "trump" is the only president in U.S. history where we really do need to worry about that happening. That's why it's important to beat him SOUNDLY. A thin win would be very risky as we already know based on his past behavior that he will make up stories about millions of illegal votes. Rigged! We also know for a fact if he isn't reelected he is open to indictment, conviction, and prison. So to say he is very motivated to win no matter what is an understatement. 

Exactly

[mikebike]

Wow. Nothing new or interesting in over 20 pages... Like a tennis game that never ends, volley, return, volley, return ad infinitum.