Shooting erupts at Colorado supermarket, bloodied man shown in handcuffs

[Surelynot]

2 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

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.

 

 

He viciously attacked a fellow student and made public threats to kill everyone in his school after losing a wrestling match .........both on record......not someone I would trust with a gun

[mogandave]

7 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

He viciously attacked a fellow student and made public threats to kill everyone in his school after losing a wrestling match .........both on record......not someone I would trust with a gun

 

He was convicted of the assault and was given a year of probation and some community service. 

 

Should the judge have also have restricted his right to buy a firearm? 

 

Knowing what we know now, yes, but judges should not be in the habit of removing the rights of 18 year olds. 

 

It is interesting we (apparently) have heard more about him being bullied in school than we have about him having been convicted of assault in school. 

 

I do not see how a background check is supposed to determine that someone is mentally unfit.

 

 

[heybruce]

4 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

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

 

 

The chart in that source conflicts with the preceding paragraph which states that gun ownership rate in Hawaii is 14.9%.  The lower figure is supported in other references:

 

https://demographicdata.org/facts-and-figures/gun-ownership-statistics/

 

https://247wallst.com/consumer-products/2020/11/02/these-area-the-states-where-people-own-the-most-guns/

 

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/gun-ownership.html

 

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, Sudarut said:

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?

Were light-weight semi-automatic rifles with 30 round magazines using cartridges specifically designed for combat use readily available 100 years ago?

[Sudarut]

21 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Were light-weight semi-automatic rifles with 30 round magazines using cartridges specifically designed for combat use readily available 100 years ago?

No, but light-weight fully automatic sub machine guns with 100 round drum magazines were. 

[heybruce]

41 minutes ago, Sudarut said:

No, but light-weight fully automatic sub machine guns with 100 round drum magazines were. 

From 1934 on those guns were only legal after paying a $200 tax.  Combined with a price of about $200 for a Thompson sub-machine gun, that put those weapons out of reach for most American's.  Average pay at the time was less than 50 cents an hour for those lucky enough to have a job.

Edited March 24, 2021 by heybruce

[Sudarut]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

From 1934 on those guns were only legal after paying a $200 tax.  Combined with a price of about $200 for a Thompson sub-machine gun, that put those weapons out of reach for most American's.  Average pay at the time was less than 50 cents an hour for those lucky enough to have a job.

So your saying there weren't mass shootings 100 years ago in the US because the guns were to expensive?  So your solution to reducing mass shootings would be to raise the tax on firearms?

[Sudarut]

10 hours ago, Sujo said:

But that argument fails as the evidence shows.

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

Because you also need candles and placards and weird virtue signalers publicly grieving for complete strangers while completely ignoring the daily murders of other strangers, such as the 22 children and teens that are shot on a daily basis in the US.  

[polpott]

6 minutes ago, Sudarut said:

while completely ignoring the daily murders of other strangers, such as the 22 children and teens that are shot on a daily basis in the US.  

Usually by family members. Its called good parenting in the US. "Spare the gun, spoil the child".

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, Sudarut said:

So your saying there weren't mass shootings 100 years ago in the US because the guns were to expensive?  So your solution to reducing mass shootings would be to raise the tax on firearms?

That's not a bad idea.  It seems logical that a contributing factor to frequent mass shootings is that today a person working at a minimum wage job can buy a high capacity semi-auto rifle or hand gun for the equivalent of two weeks pay or less.  That didn't use to be the case.

[simple1]

12 hours 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. 

 

So far as I know general public carrying weapons has not made any changes to mass killings of innocents. Secondly how many who are licensed to carry weapons are trained for 'active shooter' situations, is it required they attend a refresher course say on an annual basis? From media reports the norm is for civilians to run / hide - not return fire - I assume because they are not trained for 'active shooter' response.

 

Previously the US had a ten year ban on acquiring semi auto rifles and large capacity magazines which expired in 2004, during that period did it reduce the incidents of mass killings of innocents - I would guess the period was too short to make a difference - is that correct?

[mogandave]

6 hours ago, heybruce said:

The chart in that source conflicts with the preceding paragraph which states that gun ownership rate in Hawaii is 14.9%.  The lower figure is supported in other references:

 

https://demographicdata.org/facts-and-figures/gun-ownership-statistics/

 

https://247wallst.com/consumer-products/2020/11/02/these-area-the-states-where-people-own-the-most-guns/

 

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/gun-ownership.html

 

 

It was your link. Apparently not very reliable. 

[mogandave]

1 hour ago, simple1 said:

 

So far as I know general public carrying weapons has not made any changes to mass killings of innocents. Secondly how many who are licensed to carry weapons are trained for 'active shooter' situations, is it required they attend a refresher course say on an annual basis? From media reports the norm is for civilians to run / hide - not return fire - I assume because they are not trained for 'active shooter' response.

 

Previously the US had a ten year ban on acquiring semi auto rifles and large capacity magazines which expired in 2004, during that period did it reduce the incidents of mass killings of innocents - I would guess the period was too short to make a difference - is that correct?

 

I think the ban was only on the scary looking semi-autos, not the ones with the pretty walnut stocks. 

[pacovl46]

1 hour ago, simple1 said:

 

So far as I know general public carrying weapons has not made any changes to mass killings of innocents. Secondly how many who are licensed to carry weapons are trained for 'active shooter' situations, is it required they attend a refresher course say on an annual basis? From media reports the norm is for civilians to run / hide - not return fire - I assume because they are not trained for 'active shooter' response.

 

Previously the US had a ten year ban on acquiring semi auto rifles and large capacity magazines which expired in 2004, during that period did it reduce the incidents of mass killings of innocents - I would guess the period was too short to make a difference - is that correct?

I'm not familiar with the statistics. Most people in the US do not carry weapons. All I'm saying is that if everyone were to carry one it could make a difference, even just as a deterrent.  If you know everyone is armed you'd probably think twice before starting a firefight. 

[Tug]

6 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

I think the ban was only on the scary looking semi-autos, not the ones with the pretty walnut stocks. 

Yea the pretty ones with the extra large magazines and those lovely bump stocks you know the ones to protect you from those viscous deer when you are out hunting lol no sir no one (needs) an assault rifle it’s a want and imo an odd one at that I owne guns I do have a glock for home defense and a couple of long guns,after parkland listening to those kids pleading for the (adults) to act sensibley I took my carbine to my chop saw in solidarity with their plea I haven’t forgotten 

[pacovl46]

10 hours ago, polpott said:

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

Yes, that's one of the reasons why we don't have that ''wild wild west" attitude in Europe.  

[Rhys]

Prayers to the families and friends...RIP....

[Yellowtail]

4 minutes ago, pacovl46 said:

I'm not familiar with the statistics. Most people in the US do not carry weapons. All I'm saying is that if everyone were to carry one it could make a difference, even just as a deterrent.  If you know everyone is armed you'd probably think twice before starting a firefight. 

 

I think it everyone were armed we would have more gun deaths. 

 

That said, I don't think those armed illegally knowing everyone else is unarmed is beneficial. 

[Yellowtail]

12 minutes ago, Tug said:

Yea the pretty ones with the extra large magazines and those lovely bump stocks you know the ones to protect you from those viscous deer when you are out hunting lol no sir no one (needs) an assault rifle it’s a want and imo an odd one at that I owne guns I do have a glock for home defense and a couple of long guns,after parkland listening to those kids pleading for the (adults) to act sensibley I took my carbine to my chop saw in solidarity with their plea I haven’t forgotten 

 

But you kept the Glock...

[pacovl46]

13 hours 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. 

I don't think that it has anything to do with relaxed gun laws because most gun related crimes are not committed by legal gun permit holders.  I think it has more to do with the gang culture in those states.

[Walker88]

15 hours 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.

 

The US, like other countries, requires training, licensing, inspection and registration of.........cars and motorcycles.

 

As for guns.....'freedom.....my rights!'

 

Read through the comments in this thread and understand that gun laws in the US will never change, and mass shootings will be a part of 'American culture' until there's nothing left worth preserving of that increasingly 'failed state'.

 

So ironic that one of the oft-cited 'needs' for guns is to 'protect against tyranny', yet it was the right wing mob---the major backers of 'gun rights' and the loser incumbent---who violently stormed the US Capitol because of anger and hatred of democracy. It seems they like tyranny, so long as it's their tyrant. Of course, as the court filing of defendant Sidney Powell indicated, where the filing said 'no respectable and rational person would have taken [her lies and made-up nonsense] seriously', those folks are not the brightest bulbs. The cult did take it seriously, which not only says a lot about their (lack of) intellect, gullibility and uncivilized nature, but also says what she really thinks of the cult. She thinks they're dumb suckers.  Dumb suckers with guns.

 

 

 

Edited March 25, 2021 by Walker88

[Yellowtail]

11 minutes ago, pacovl46 said:

Yes, that's one of the reasons why we don't have that ''wild wild west" attitude in Europe.  

 

Well that and you had most of it beat out of you...

 

(just kidding) 

[pacovl46]

8 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

I think it everyone were armed we would have more gun deaths. 

 

That said, I don't think those armed illegally knowing everyone else is unarmed is beneficial.

Well, I'll guess we'll never find out because most people don't carry guns.

[Chomper Higgot]

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeal has just ruled there is no Constitutional right to carry a gun in public and that States/Federal Government Have the right to regulate who is permitted to carry a gun in public:

 

https://www.courthousenews.com/carrying-guns-in-public-is-not-a-constitutional-right-ninth-circuit-rules/?amp=1

 

Meanwhile, there is no Constitutional right to carry a gun onto/into somebody else’s property/premises without their permission.

 

It’s past time for business owners to step up and ban guns on their premises.

 

As has been demonstrated in earlier posts there are 43 states in which fewer than half the population own guns, let alone carry them when out shopping or going for a coffee.

 

Time to take care of the majority of business customers, rather than bending to the will of the armed minority.

 

 

Edited March 25, 2021 by Chomper Higgot

[Walker88]

15 hours 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.

 

 

Obviously the law allows leaders and officials to put restrictions of what 'arms' a citizen can own. The 2nd Amendment is not open ended, no matter how one interprets its fuzzy verbiage. I'm a 'law-abiding' citizen, but I cannot own a tactical nuke, not even for 'home defense'. Neither can I own an A-10 Warthog with a GAU-8 cannon that fires depleted uranium rounds. Claymore mines (for home protection, of course) are also off the menu, as are Stinger missiles to shoot down those Black Helicopters when the Feds come to carry me off to a FEMA Camp (/sarc).

 

Congress could easily put AR-15s, AK-47s and other weapons that differ from war weapons only in the 'full auto' selection switch (the difference in firing rate is minimal between an M4 and an AR-15) on the Claymore mine side of the equation, while still allowing hunters to own the firearms they use hunting (largely bolt-action, small mag rifles or pump shotguns)

[Yellowtail]

15 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

 

 

 

I have no credibility with the left.

 

Your link substantiates my claim, as does this link from Wiki:

Gun violence in the United States by state - Wikipedia

Both our links could be wrong, I was shocked when I read Hawaii was high. 

 

New Jersey is interesting, their firearm ownership ship rates are about a forth of the ownership rate in Idaho, yet their firearm homicide rate is double. 

 

Washington DC's gun ownership rate is less than half that of Idaho, yet the gun homicide rate is twelve times as high. 

 

Sure, you can find states with low ownership rates and low homicide rates, and states with high ownership rates and high homicide rates, but that is certainly not the rule. California has a much lower ownership rate than Texas, yet their gun homicide rates are the same.

 

 

[Yellowtail]

6 minutes ago, Walker88 said:

 

Obviously the law allows leaders and officials to put restrictions of what 'arms' a citizen can own. The 2nd Amendment is not open ended, no matter how one interprets its fuzzy verbiage. I'm a 'law-abiding' citizen, but I cannot own a tactical nuke, not even for 'home defense'. Neither can I own an A-10 Warthog with a GAU-8 cannon that fires depleted uranium rounds. Claymore mines (for home protection, of course) are also off the menu, as are Stinger missiles to shoot down those Black Helicopters when the Feds come to carry me off to a FEMA Camp (/sarc).

 

Congress could easily put AR-15s, AK-47s and other weapons that differ from war weapons only in the 'full auto' selection switch (the difference in firing rate is minimal between an M4 and an AR-15) on the Claymore mine side of the equation, while still allowing hunters to own the firearms they use hunting (largely bolt-action, small mag rifles or pump shotguns)

 

And would you then confiscate all the existing ARs and AKs? 

 

Do you think this will stop mass shootings?

 

When it does not stop mass shootings, what would be the next step?

[Yellowtail]

36 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeal has just ruled there is no Constitutional right to carry a gun in public and that States/Federal Government Have the right to regulate who is permitted to carry a gun in public:

 

https://www.courthousenews.com/carrying-guns-in-public-is-not-a-constitutional-right-ninth-circuit-rules/?amp=1

 

Meanwhile, there is no Constitutional right to carry a gun onto/into somebody else’s property/premises without their permission.

 

It’s past time for business owners to step up and ban guns on their premises.

 

As has been demonstrated in earlier posts there are 43 states in which fewer than half the population own guns, let alone carry them when out shopping or going for a coffee.

 

Time to take care of the majority of business customers, rather than bending to the will of the armed minority.

 

 

 

Yes, its time for all the small business owners in urban areas to put up gun-free zone signs. 

[cdemundo]

If the Sandy Hook massacre of elementary school children didn't result in change I have to wonder what will.

 

[Yellowtail]

40 minutes ago, Walker88 said:

 

Obviously the law allows leaders and officials to put restrictions of what 'arms' a citizen can own. The 2nd Amendment is not open ended, no matter how one interprets its fuzzy verbiage. I'm a 'law-abiding' citizen, but I cannot own a tactical nuke, not even for 'home defense'. Neither can I own an A-10 Warthog with a GAU-8 cannon that fires depleted uranium rounds. Claymore mines (for home protection, of course) are also off the menu, as are Stinger missiles to shoot down those Black Helicopters when the Feds come to carry me off to a FEMA Camp (/sarc).

 

Congress could easily put AR-15s, AK-47s and other weapons that differ from war weapons only in the 'full auto' selection switch (the difference in firing rate is minimal between an M4 and an AR-15) on the Claymore mine side of the equation, while still allowing hunters to own the firearms they use hunting (largely bolt-action, small mag rifles or pump shotguns)

 

AR-15s were used in about a forth of the mass shooting in US in the last ten years.

 

Since 2013, in the US there have been 417 people killed in mass shootings, or about 50 a year.

 

To put that in perspective, there were about 40,000 gun deaths in the US in 2020, although over half of those are suicides, 

 

But let's focus on the less than 1% represented by mass shootings. and the less than 1/10 of 1% killed by an AR-15 in mass shootings.