Shooting erupts at Colorado supermarket, bloodied man shown in handcuffs

[polpott]

4 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

Proven by who, your poly-sci professor? 

 

So how would you punish the people that violate gun control laws? 

 

5 years jail in the UK.

[Sujo]

Those that are against restrictions have zero right to offer any thoughts or prayers.

 

YOU are the problem.

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

 

Okay, Hawaii has a much higher gun ownership rate, yet a much lower gun homicide rate.

 

You've really hurt your credibility.  I tried to find something to confirm or refute your claim.  I quickly found this:

 

"Gun laws in Hawaii regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in the state of Hawaii, United States. Hawaii's gun laws are among the most restrictive in the country. "  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Hawaii

 

and this:

 

"On the other side of the scale, we have the states with the lowest percentage of gun owners. Massachusetts and New Jersey have the lowest gun ownership rate of 14.7%, followed by Rhode Island, with 14.8%, and Hawaii, with 14.9%."  https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/gun-ownership-by-state

 

 

[mogandave]

2 hours ago, Surelynot said:

....but that then takes you back to the same question I guess.....what drives people to take this 'greed' route? Why are they so greedy..... is it that other options are so poor they are prepared to take this route, knowing the potential of making a lot of money even though it goes hand in hand with the potential of a very short life span.

 

I can see the basic greed argument, but it must also be a pretty scary life.....or as you say......they have been doing it for generations and it has become a 'normal' way of life???

Who is “they”? 

 

 

[heybruce]

It seems the pro-gun crowd only want to discuss banning or not banning.  Posts arguing for intelligent restrictions on who can own a gun, required training and licensing of people who own or use guns, registration of guns, etc. are ignored.

 

[mogandave]

8 minutes ago, heybruce said:

It seems the pro-gun crowd only want to discuss banning or not banning.  Posts arguing for intelligent restrictions on who can own a gun, required training and licensing of people who own or use guns, registration of guns, etc. are ignored.

 

 

Who should be allowed to own a gun?

 

More gun laws might make sense if existing laws were better enforced. 

 

 

 

 

[Sujo]

34 minutes ago, heybruce said:

It seems the pro-gun crowd only want to discuss banning or not banning.  Posts arguing for intelligent restrictions on who can own a gun, required training and licensing of people who own or use guns, registration of guns, etc. are ignored.

 

Yes thats all they do. They say its all or nothing.

 

As with all things it should be a progression, bit by bit. Before you know it the US will evolve the way of more enlightened countries that prefer to address mass murders.

 

Or can go the way of other lawless countries.  the way its going they need more jails and more cemetaries.

 

Perhaps repubs will ban burials as it takes up too much land.

Edited March 24, 2021 by Sujo

[pacovl46]

9 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

While the US codified the right to bear arms in the Constitution, it is incorrect to say that citizens of other nations have not had the right to bear arms over the same period.

 

As a general rule of law throughout European nations, things that are not specifically forbidden under law are permitted.

 

There’s a lot more to ‘gun control’ than banning guns, but I expect you know that.

What I was trying to say is that the right to bear arms has been taken away from the vast majority of people living in Europe for example, and it has been that way for decades in some cases over a century. This has not been the case in the US where they had that right continuously  since 1774 or whenever it was they declared their independence, and that’s the difference. America is flooded with guns, the same cannot be said for Europe for example. 

[heybruce]

24 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

Who should be allowed to own a gun?

 

More gun laws might make sense if existing laws were better enforced. 

 

People who pass a training course similar to the small arms training given in the military, pass a background check, and then use and store their gun(s) in a safe, responsible manner. 

 

People who do stupid things, like leave a gun in an unlocked car, point the gun in an unsafe direction, carry their gun under the influence of drugs or alcohol (no more drunken hunting trips), etc. should lose their gun and the right to own another.

[pacovl46]

7 hours ago, simple1 said:

 

IMO politicians should be banned from receiving donations from any lobby group or private / commercial organisation legislation to address this matter is long overdue

 

I understand in this instance and other mass killings in the US, killers have mainly used legally acquired weapons. IMO enabling the general population to carry semi auto rifles and so on in public places is absurd. But if that's how the majority of voters in a State wish to live so be it. Personally I would not wish to live in an environment where members of the public are permitted to carry weapons.

I agree with the receiving donations part.

 

If you compare the number of people who die in mass shootings in the US to the number of people who die in other shooting crimes per year the former number is exceedingly small! Most guns used in crimes are illegally obtained, which makes sense because after shooting someone the last thing a perpetrator wants to do is to keep that gun.

 

I don’t have a problem with people legally carrying guns. One could argue that if more people were to carry guns mass shootings could be stopped much earlier. The goal of these people is always to kill as many people as possible to become hopefully the most lethal, most notorious of them all. In order to achieve that they choose places were they hope to find the least amount of armed people because if everyone had a gun and you start shooting and within a second everyone starts shooting back your chances of making it become extremely small, which might act as a deterrent, but that’s a discussion for another day. 

Edited March 24, 2021 by pacovl46

[Sujo]

5 minutes ago, pacovl46 said:

I agree with the receiving donations part.

 

 One could argue that if more people were to carry guns mass shootings could be stopped much earlier, but that’s a subject for another day.

But that argument fails as the evidence shows.

Thoughts and prayers also not working so stop that stuff also.

Edited March 24, 2021 by Sujo

[pacovl46]

2 minutes ago, Sujo said:

But that argument fails as the evidence shows.

Thoughts and prayers also not working so stop that stuff also.

How does it fail?

[mogandave]

15 minutes ago, heybruce said:

People who pass a training course similar to the small arms training given in the military, pass a background check, and then use and store their gun(s) in a safe, responsible manner. 

 

People who do stupid things, like leave a gun in an unlocked car, point the gun in an unsafe direction, carry their gun under the influence of drugs or alcohol (no more drunken hunting trips), etc. should lose their gun and the right to own another.

 

I would support that depending on the details, but i do not think the individual should bear the financial burden of certification and background checks, as it would disproportionately deny the poor their rights. 

[Eric Loh]

15 minutes ago, pacovl46 said:

I agree with the receiving donations part.

 

If you compare the number of people who die in mass shootings in the US to the number of people who die in other shooting crimes per year the former number is exceedingly small! Most guns used in crimes are illegally obtained, which makes sense because after shooting someone the last thing a perpetrator wants to do is to keep that gun.

 

I don’t have a problem with people legally carrying guns. One could argue that if more people were to carry guns mass shootings could be stopped much earlier. The goal of these people is always to kill as many people as possible to become hopefully the most lethal, most notorious of them all. In order to achieve that they choose places were they hope to find the least amount of armed people because if everyone had a gun and you start shooting and within a second everyone starts shooting back your chances of making it become extremely small, which might act as a deterrent, but that’s a discussion for another day. 

Your argument that more guns will result in less killings will be hard to accept when you consider states like Arizona, Idaho and Texas with high guns ownership have the most guns deaths per 100,000. By the way, these 3 states also have the most friendly guns laws and governed by Republicans. 

[mogandave]

1 hour ago, Sujo said:

But that argument fails as the evidence shows.

Thoughts and prayers also not working so stop that stuff also.

 

What evidence?

[mogandave]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

You've really hurt your credibility.  I tried to find something to confirm or refute your claim.  I quickly found this:

 

"Gun laws in Hawaii regulate the sale, possession, and use of firearms and ammunition in the state of Hawaii, United States. Hawaii's gun laws are among the most restrictive in the country. "  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Hawaii

 

and this:

 

"On the other side of the scale, we have the states with the lowest percentage of gun owners. Massachusetts and New Jersey have the lowest gun ownership rate of 14.7%, followed by Rhode Island, with 14.8%, and Hawaii, with 14.9%."  https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/gun-ownership-by-state

 

From your link:

 

[mogandave]

1 hour ago, Eric Loh said:

Your argument that more guns will result in less killings will be hard to accept when you consider states like Arizona, Idaho and Texas with high guns ownership have the most guns deaths per 100,000. By the way, these 3 states also have the most friendly guns laws and governed by Republicans. 

 

Not per Bruce’s link, do you have one of your own?

 

 

Edited March 24, 2021 by mogandave
clarity

[Surelynot]

2 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

Who should be allowed to own a gun?

 

 

 

 

 

 

No private individual for a start....and certainly by nationality...no Americans....that is a no-brainer.

[edwardandtubs]

On 3/23/2021 at 9:11 AM, pseudorabies said:

Two mass shootings in as many weeks.

 

After a year of dealing with COVID it looks like things are finally returning to normal in the US

One mass shooting had mostly Asian victims and the perpetrator was white so the media run with the "hate crime" story. The other one had entirely white victims and a Syrian perpetrator but the media have gone strangely quiet.

[mogandave]

1 minute ago, edwardandtubs said:

One mass shooting had mostly Asian victims and the perpetrator was white so the media run with the "hate crime" story. The other one had entirely white victims and a Syrian perpetrator but the media have gone strangely quiet.

 

Strangely? 

[Surelynot]

16 minutes ago, edwardandtubs said:

One mass shooting had mostly Asian victims and the perpetrator was white so the media run with the "hate crime" story. The other one had entirely white victims and a Syrian perpetrator but the media have gone strangely quiet.

Just searched ...plenty of information from a variety of outlets.......why do say it has gone strangely quiet?

 

Oh....you mean everyone should be frothing at the mouth demanding all muslims be arrested.....ban all immigration.....that sort of thing?

 

Or how about he was obviously mental and any half baked background check would have stopped him buying a gun???

[rott]

4 hours ago, mogandave said:

Who is “they”? 

 

 

Er, the people who take the greed route seem to fit the bill. 

[Sudarut]

On 3/23/2021 at 9:39 AM, Walker88 said:

And what will be the answer? More guns, of course. Guns for teachers, school janitors, supermarket checkout clerks, priests, pastors and rabbis, cinema ushers, fast food workers, nightclub bouncers......

The "gun" hasn't really changed that much in the last 100 years.    Mass shootings were unheard of 100 years ago, so what's changed?

[edwardandtubs]

7 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

Just searched ...plenty of information from a variety of outlets.......why do say it has gone strangely quiet?

 

Oh....you mean everyone should be frothing at the mouth demanding all muslims be arrested.....ban all immigration.....that sort of thing?

 

Or how about he was obviously mental and any half baked background check would have stopped him buying a gun???

No, I'm saying the media shouldn't assume a "hate crime" motive without any evidence at all just because the perpetrator is white and some of the victims aren't. Compare the BBC website which ran with the "hate crime" narrative as its leading story after the spa shootings but this shooting by a Syrian didn't even make it to the front page.

[Thomas J]

5 hours ago, Walker88 said:

ARs and AKs have extremely limited utility, unless one wants to kill a lot of people quickly. Home defense? Your neighbors might not like it if a round passes through your wall and into their house. Hunting? If one needs 30 rounds to take down an animal, best to buy your burgers at McDonalds.

You are correct about AR-15's  That is exactly my point.  Those who wish to ban them don't seem to recognize that they really are not a particularly large and powerful caliber.  That however is not true for the AK-47 which is a 7.62x39 cartridge which is about a 31 caliber bullet compared to the AR-15 which is much smaller .22 caliber bullet. 

Regarding the 30 round clip.  That has to do with the size of the clip not the gun.  You can take any semi-automatic rifle and add a large capacity clip to it.  

Regarding using the AR-15 for hunting.  It is at best for small animals.  It really should not be used to hunt large game such as deer.   However, it was never intended as a hunting firearm.  With that said, our founding fathers did not put in the second amendment to protect them from deer.  They feared an oppressive government and notice the word in the second amendment refers to militia not to hunters. 

[Sudarut]

18 minutes ago, edwardandtubs said:

 Compare the BBC website which ran with the "hate crime" narrative as its leading story after the spa shootings but this shooting by a Syrian didn't even make it to the front page.

BBC- Bolshevik Broadcasting Company. 

[mogandave]

40 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

Just searched ...plenty of information from a variety of outlets.......why do say it has gone strangely quiet?

 

Oh....you mean everyone should be frothing at the mouth demanding all muslims be arrested.....ban all immigration.....that sort of thing?

 

Or how about he was obviously mental and any half baked background check would have stopped him buying a gun???

 

How would a background check show that he was “obviously mental”?

 

in any event, you apparently already have to pass a background check to buy a gun in Colorado.

 

 

Edited March 24, 2021 by mogandave
added text

[Sudarut]

On 3/23/2021 at 1:20 PM, Jeffr2 said:

 A majority of Americans are all for stricter gun control laws.

You mean the people living in gated communities which employ armed security?

[polpott]

3 hours ago, pacovl46 said:

What I was trying to say is that the right to bear arms has been taken away from the vast majority of people living in Europe for example, and it has been that way for decades in some cases over a century.

The UK has never had "the right to bear arms" in the American sense. We don't even have a written constitution.

[Thomas J]

6 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

A pretty lame defence of gun rights. Smoking and drinking don't kill children and high school kids. In fact there are more laws prohibiting buying of cigarettes and alcohol than guns laws. Of course US can do more to reduce the number of guns ownerships. More draconian laws to deter illegal owneship, an expansive universal background checks to cover all sales than current law, raising taxes on firearms and ammunitions, banning assault weapons and mandatory registeration of all guns owners. Simple practical laws that majority of US citizens welcome but resisted by the Reps and you.

It is obvious that you "think" you know a lot about gun ownership but don't.  There are literally thousands of regulations both federal and state.  There is a requirement for a background check.  Second hand smoke does kill people and over 28% of the deaths on the highways are due to drivers under the influence. So yes cigarettes do kill people other than their users and alcohol also kills other people than just those that consume it. 

I really don't object to gun laws and I don't think the majority of gun owners do also.  There is a huge difference however between passing laws that only impact law abiding citizens and do nothing to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them.  I have yet to hear anyone who is proposing gun laws say exactly how those laws would have prevented the person who committed the killing from obtaining the gun.   

I really wish there was some way of identifying those people who are deranged and should not have a firearm.  But I also truly believe that those people who are bent on killing will find another weapon to carry out their intentions.  If we are really concerned about "lives"  Drug overdoses kill over 70,000 people in the USA each and every year.  The vast majority of "gun deaths" 62% are suicide.  Homicides total on average about 10,000 per year compared to 70,000 drug overdoses.  However the same people who are calling for stricter control of guns to potentially "save lives" also are among those calling for reducing or eliminating controls on the Mexico/USA border where the vast majority of the illegal drugs come from.  So I guess somehow one persons life lost to a gun is somehow more important that one lost to drugs.   


Overview. Every day, about 28 people in the United States die in drunk-driving crashes — that's one person every 52 minutes. In 2019, these deaths reached the lowest percentage since 1982 when NHTSA started reporting alcohol data — but still 10,142 people lost their lives. These deaths were all preventable.

I guess I will ask you, why are the deaths from firearms a cause for alarm and control when those from drug overdose and alcohol abuse don't so much as make a headline? 

I have attached a link that shows the requirement for a background check.  

Trust me, I have purchased firearms and you are required to show ID and wait for the background check to be completed before you can obtain the gun.  That is not true for "private sales" but I don't think that most would object to it being mandated s well. 

https://www.dw.com/en/8-facts-about-gun-control-in-the-us/a-40816418

Edited March 24, 2021 by Thomas J