Shooting erupts at Colorado supermarket, bloodied man shown in handcuffs

[Eric Loh]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

 

Oh yes, lefty's old "we care so much more than your evil wingers that care noting for human lives" argument.

 

No doubt the next line will be "If we only save one life it will all be worth it" 

 

It's tiresome. The only lives you guys care about are the lives you can make political hay from. If you truly cared about gun deaths you would do something about all the gang members killing each other and the innocents that are killed in the crossfire. 

 

If you cared about people's lives you'd have come out against all the antifa black-lives-mater riots that killed over thirty and ruined countless others.

 

Save the pablum for the fools that buy into that idiocy, 

 

Ludicrous thinking to give guns to all untrained civilians. It will be a Turkey shoot. 

[Sujo]

5 hours ago, Thomas J said:

yes the end game is the confiscation of all guns.  It "logically" has to lead there since banning those "scary" assault" weapons will only cause those wishing to do harm to an alternate gun.  First another semi-automatic rifle, then to shotguns, and as shown at Ft. Hood a handgun. 

The USA has implemented total bans on numerous items not the least of which are illegal drugs.  That has only led to the enrichment of the criminal underworld and drugs gang violence 

We have laws against speeding but there are still speeders.  We have laws against rape but people still get raped.  We have laws against drunk driving but people still do it.  etc. etc. etc.  

It is lunacy to think that somehow a person who is willing to walk into a group of people with a firearm and kill them will somehow be prevented from doing so because the firearm he is using is illegal or was illegally obtained. 

Now the other lunacy to me is that there were 221 deaths in 2019 from mass shootings.  The vast majority of gun homicides are not mass shootings but drug gangs using handguns.   So even if you could completely stop the mass shootings it would have a statistically insignificant effect on the total number of firearm deaths. 

Again more deflection. How do you live in thailand without a gun, must be so scary for you.

[Sujo]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

 

Oh yes, lefty's old "we care so much more than your evil wingers that care noting for human lives" argument.

 

No doubt the next line will be "If we only save one life it will all be worth it" 

 

It's tiresome. The only lives you guys care about are the lives you can make political hay from. If you truly cared about gun deaths you would do something about all the gang members killing each other and the innocents that are killed in the crossfire. 

 

If you cared about people's lives you'd have come out against all the antifa black-lives-mater riots that killed over thirty and ruined countless others.

 

Save the pablum for the fools that buy into that idiocy, 

 

You think gun restrictions will only save one life?

are you happy with the mass murders?

 

if you are not happy with mass murders what do you think should be done?

 

because right now its not working.

Edited March 25, 2021 by Sujo

[heybruce]

22 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

 

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.

 

My link had two conflicting gun ownership numbers for Hawaii, obviously one was wrong.  In checking I found that there are numerous sources supporting the lower gun ownership number, and no credible source supporting the higher number.  https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/gun-ownership.html

 

However you are correct about your lack of credibility, due to you habit of making claims without supporting evidence.

 

Urban areas have higher crime rates than rural areas, and local gun restrictions are easily avoided by bringing in guns from places without the restrictions.

[heybruce]

22 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

 

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?

Are you arguing that laws that would reduce mass shootings are worthless because they wouldn't completely limit mass shootings?

 

If so, shouldn't we eliminate all laws, since illegal activity continues in spite of it being illegal?

[heybruce]

21 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

 

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. 

 

Why do you think eliminating the most lethal weapons, which also the most useless for hunting and self-defense, would result in less emphasis on reducing all gun crime?

[heybruce]

19 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

 

What gun control law could have been implemented that would have stopped these shootings?

A waiting period would have prevented the Atlanta shooter from purchasing a gun and going on a shooting spree the same day.  A ban on assault rifles would have denied the Colorado shooter his chosen weapon.

[heybruce]

17 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

 

The right to vote (and the right to own firearms) is stripped from people convicted of felonies, not simple assaults, and it's relatively easy for felons to get their voting rights back. It is interesting the big push to have voting rights automatically restored to felons and the vote-harvesting that goes on in US prisons...

 

I agree that people with a history of violence should be barred from gun ownership. I would support any number of gun control measure that do not disproportionately affect the poor.

More claims made without evidence.  Until recently it was almost impossible for convicted felons in Florida to have their voting rights restored, and even now they must somehow show that all financial penalties of the conviction have been satisfied even though there is no central database for them to go to which would tell them what penalties are outstanding.

 

How are votes harvested in prison?

[heybruce]

23 hours 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. 

If everyone is armed you can expect many more gun thefts (those weapons are valuable and easy to sell), many more gun accidents and many more untrained 'good guys' accidentally shooting each other in a chaotic shooter situation.

[heybruce]

23 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

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

The ban limited magazine capacity, not the material the stock was made of.

[heybruce]

23 hours ago, mogandave said:

 

It was your link. Apparently not very reliable. 

Do you consider the Rand link reliable?  The claim that Hawaii has above average gun ownership rates which tie into below average gun crime has been discredited.  https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/gun-ownership.html

[heybruce]

16 hours ago, Thomas J said:

It is obvious you know little about firearms and firearms law.  It is already illegal to own a fully automatic firearm.  Only special Federal Firearms Licensed dealers can purchase them and they in turn sell to Law Enforcement.  

The AR-15 is a semi-automatic firearm.  That is one pull of the trigger gets one shot.  A fully automatic weapon one pull of the trigger and held empties the entire gun.  So if it has 30 shells it fires 30 times instantaneously.  

Now semi-automatic rifles are VERY COMMON for hunters.  The only other choices are Pump Action, Lever Action, or Bolt Action.  

Now consider a shotgun 12 gauge pump with 5 shot 3"  #4 buckshot.  
A single shot distributes 41 projectiles each larger than a single shot from a .223 - AR-15.  Multiply that by 5 and in seconds far more death and destruction can be unleased by a 5 shot pump than a semi-automatic AR-15 or AK-47.   Those shotguns can also be modified with ease with a large tube expanding their shell capacity from 5 to 10 or more. 

So when the mass shooter can't get his AR-15 but walks into a church with his 12 gauge shotgun and kills 30 people do you ban shotguns too? 

I am for keeping guns out of the hands of those who intend to use them to hurt or kill someone.  I however am not for legislation that only the law abiding will follow, and that has next to ZERO impact on reducing gun deaths.  

The focus on AR-15's is misguided.  First it is nothing more than a .223 caliber semi-automatic that is cosmetically altered to look military.  There are numerous other .223 caliber semi-automatics out there with identical firepower.  The .223 caliber is puny. Numerous hunting rifles are semi-automatic with .30 caliber bullets making them far more powerful.  Any of them can be changed to hold 20, 30, or 40 bullets just by changing the size of clip attached to them.  Most by design come with only a 5 shot clip.  Ban high capacity clips.  Assuming you don't create a black market for high capacity clips.  It takes a mere few seconds for a shooter with a second, third, or 4th clip to eject the spent one and insert the new one. 

Again, we share the same goal - Reduce deaths but I think right now there is a push to "do something" to create the illusion of solving the problem when the proposals being pushed will do nothing but hamper law abiding citizens and do nothing to stop those who should not have a gun from obtaining one. 
 

Yes, a shotgun makes for a good close quarter slaughter weapon.  It is also a good hunting weapon.  However it doesn't have the range or penetrating power of a .223 so it is less likely to cause collateral damage in home defense.  If you feel you must have a close quarter slaughter weapon for home defense, use a shotgun.

 

There a definitely more powerful rifles than the .223 assault rifle, but those more powerful rifles have legitimate hunting purposes.  They and their ammunition are also considerably heavier than an assault rifle and more difficult to conceal.

 

What legitimate purpose does a .223 assault rifle serve?

[heybruce]

16 hours ago, Thomas J said:

yes the end game is the confiscation of all guns.  It "logically" has to lead there since banning those "scary" assault" weapons will only cause those wishing to do harm to an alternate gun.  First another semi-automatic rifle, then to shotguns, and as shown at Ft. Hood a handgun. 

The USA has implemented total bans on numerous items not the least of which are illegal drugs.  That has only led to the enrichment of the criminal underworld and drugs gang violence 

We have laws against speeding but there are still speeders.  We have laws against rape but people still get raped.  We have laws against drunk driving but people still do it.  etc. etc. etc.  

It is lunacy to think that somehow a person who is willing to walk into a group of people with a firearm and kill them will somehow be prevented from doing so because the firearm he is using is illegal or was illegally obtained. 

Now the other lunacy to me is that there were 221 deaths in 2019 from mass shootings.  The vast majority of gun homicides are not mass shootings but drug gangs using handguns.   So even if you could completely stop the mass shootings it would have a statistically insignificant effect on the total number of firearm deaths. 

Once again you are arguing that since there is no perfect set of laws that will end all gun crime there should be no gun laws.

[heybruce]

16 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

 

As sadly, no one seems able to actually formulate a substantive response, they will just call this deflection move on.

 

It is interesting they ridicule the right for claiming the the laws will only lead to confiscating all laws, then go on to admit their end game is to confiscate all guns. 

"they" are not everyone.  Most of the people who argue for eliminating all guns are not from the US.

 

I'm from the US and proposed laws concerning owning, using, and registering guns similar to laws regarding owning, using, and registering automobiles.  These laws would not eliminate all gun crimes and accidents, but intelligent laws would greatly reduce them.  I have yet to receive an intelligent comment against this approach.

 

Obviously it is more difficult to argue against a rational middle ground regarding guns.  It's much easier to argue that any gun control is for the purpose of totaling eliminating guns.  Assuming the only views are the extreme ones is much easier than thinking.

[heybruce]

14 hours ago, pacovl46 said:

That might be true, but if someone walks into a cinema and starts shooting people during a screening of the latest Batman flick and someone in the crowd pulls a gun and puts the shooters lights out he could potentially save the lives of a hundred people. Also, if the shooter knew everyone in that cinema is armed he’d probably be looking for a different target unless he’s on a suicide mission.

What happens when dozens of people in that dark crowded theater pull out there guns and start shooting at anyone else holding a gun?

[Yellowtail]

50 minutes ago, heybruce said:

My link had two conflicting gun ownership numbers for Hawaii, obviously one was wrong.  In checking I found that there are numerous sources supporting the lower gun ownership number, and no credible source supporting the higher number.  https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/gun-ownership.html

 

However you are correct about your lack of credibility, due to you habit of making claims without supporting evidence.

 

Urban areas have higher crime rates than rural areas, and local gun restrictions are easily avoided by bringing in guns from places without the restrictions.

 

I used Wikipedia, and it matched your source .

Gun violence in the United States by state - Wikipedia

 

You are deflecting. I said noting of gun laws, I was talking about gun homicides rates compared to gun ownership rates.  What I said was: 

 

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.

 

What does that have to do with gun laws? 

 

 

[Yellowtail]

45 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Are you arguing that laws that would reduce mass shootings are worthless because they wouldn't completely limit mass shootings?

 

If so, shouldn't we eliminate all laws, since illegal activity continues in spite of it being illegal?

 

No I am not saying that at all. What I said was that I did not believe banning sales of AKs & ARs would stop mass shootings, and went on to ask what would the left's next step be when mass shooting weren't stopped. Sorry that wasn't clear. 

 

I do NOT believe stopping the sale of assault style weapons will have any impact on the number of mass shootings, and little if any impact on the number of deaths resulting from mass shootings.

 

Is that more clear? 

 

 

[heybruce]

24 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

I used Wikipedia, and it matched your source .

Gun violence in the United States by state - Wikipedia

 

You are deflecting. I said noting of gun laws, I was talking about gun homicides rates compared to gun ownership rates.  What I said was: 

 

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.

 

What does that have to do with gun laws? 

 

 

Good question.  Why did you bring up the subject of gun ownership rates and crime?

[heybruce]

6 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

No I am not saying that at all. What I said was that I did not believe banning sales of AKs & ARs would stop mass shootings, and went on to ask what would the left's next step be when mass shooting weren't stopped. Sorry that wasn't clear. 

 

I do NOT believe stopping the sale of assault style weapons will have any impact on the number of mass shootings, and little if any impact on the number of deaths resulting from mass shootings.

 

Is that more clear? 

 

 

So you don't think the Colorado shooter would have been stopped or would have done less damage if he had not had an assault rifle.  Most people would disagree.

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

Why do you think eliminating the most lethal weapons, which also the most useless for hunting and self-defense, would result in less emphasis on reducing all gun crime?

 

Your question is not clear. But in any event, I do think eliminating assault rifles would have no impact on gun crime, I just do not think that impact would be significant.

 

Also, assuming you are talking about assault rifles, they would be much more useful for hunting most anything than a hand gun would be, yes?

 

[pacovl46]

15 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

You ought to direct the next Batman movie. You do have the talent for story telling. 

Bak wuan mak mak! 

[EVENKEEL]

OK so let's imagine all assault type weapons were banned. Next the gun designers would redesign hunting rifles which are also semi-auto to replace assault weapons. Next after shootings occur with hunting rifles, the next step is to outlaw all semi auto rifles probably including shotguns. Then comes handguns. 

 

And on and on until we're (the law abiding) left with sharp sticks and the bad guys are still armed. 

[pacovl46]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

If everyone is armed you can expect many more gun thefts (those weapons are valuable and easy to sell), many more gun accidents and many more untrained 'good guys' accidentally shooting each other in a chaotic shooter situation.

That’s why there are gun safes. They make it really hard to steal guns. It could be made mandatory for everyone to have a gun safe at home and use them to store their guns when not using them and for everyone who wants a gun license to train for shooter situations. 

[pacovl46]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

What happens when dozens of people in that dark crowded theater pull out there guns and start shooting at anyone else holding a gun?

What if, what if, what if! 
 

If I was watching a movie and someone would storm in and start shooting, I’d know which guy to shoot at! 

Edited March 26, 2021 by pacovl46

[Jeffr2]

6 minutes ago, EVENKEEL said:

OK so let's imagine all assault type weapons were banned. Next the gun designers would redesign hunting rifles which are also semi-auto to replace assault weapons. Next after shootings occur with hunting rifles, the next step is to outlaw all semi auto rifles probably including shotguns. Then comes handguns. 

 

And on and on until we're (the law abiding) left with sharp sticks and the bad guys are still armed. 

In the end. More guns mean more homicides.  And more suicides.  Get rid of the guns, you get rid of this.

 

100 people a day are killed by guns in the US.  Time for the insanity to stop.  Sad some don't agree with this.

[pacovl46]

10 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

In the end. More guns mean more homicides.  And more suicides.  Get rid of the guns, you get rid of this.

 

100 people a day are killed by guns in the US.  Time for the insanity to stop.  Sad some don't agree with this.

Common misperception. First of all, there’s tons of other ways to kill oneself and if guns aren’t available anymore then they’ll step in front of a car or throw themselves of a bridge or hit a wall at a hundred miles an hour. Second of all, most of the shooting crimes in the US are not committed with legally registered guns, they’re committed with guns bought on the already existing black market and if you were to ban legal guns in the US then all that would do is to expand the black market. It’s too late to take away guns from Americans because they’ve had the right to bear arms for well over two centuries already! More guns does not automatically equal more homicides! 
 

What actually could put a major dent in shooting crimes would be to legalize all drugs in the US, have them produced by the individual states and taxed and sold through pharmacies at a price that’s far cheaper than anything the black market can offer and at a much higher quality! The result would be  that no one would by the cut up <deleted> on the street anymore, therefore there’s no market to sell for the gangs and therefore no reason for turf wars either and most of the gang/drug related shootings would die out over night! 

Edited March 26, 2021 by pacovl46

[Jeffr2]

3 minutes ago, pacovl46 said:

Common misperception. First of all, there’s tons of other ways to kill oneself and if guns aren’t available anymore then they’ll step in front of a car or throw themselves of a bridge or hit a wall at a hundred miles an hour. Second of all, most of the shooting crimes in the US are not committed with legally registered guns, they’re committed with guns bought on the already existing black market and if you were to ban legal guns in the US then all that would do is to expand the black market. It’s too late to take away guns from Americans because they’ve had the right to bear arms for well over two centuries already! More guns does not automatically equal more homicides! 
 

What actually could put a major dent in shooting crimes would be to legalize all drugs in the US, have them produced by the individual states and taxed and sold through pharmacies at a price that’s far cheaper than anything the black market can offer and at a much higher quality! The result would be  that no one would by the cut up <deleted> on the street anymore, therefore there’s no market to sell for the gangs and therefore no reason for turf wars either and most of the gang/drug related shootings would die out over night! 

Too many holes in your argument.  Less guns = less deaths.  Impossible to say otherwise.  Impossible.  Though some try.

[pacovl46]

1 minute ago, Jeffr2 said:

Too many holes in your argument.  Less guns = less deaths.  Impossible to say otherwise.  Impossible.  Though some try.

Keep your head in the sand then, mate! 

[Jeffr2]

6 minutes ago, pacovl46 said:

Keep your head in the sand then, mate! 

Right back at ya.

[Walker88]

14 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

 

Oh yes, lefty's old "we care so much more than your evil wingers that care noting for human lives" argument.

 

No doubt the next line will be "If we only save one life it will all be worth it" 

 

It's tiresome. The only lives you guys care about are the lives you can make political hay from. If you truly cared about gun deaths you would do something about all the gang members killing each other and the innocents that are killed in the crossfire. 

 

If you cared about people's lives you'd have come out against all the antifa black-lives-mater riots that killed over thirty and ruined countless others.

 

Save the pablum for the fools that buy into that idiocy, 

 

Cold. Damn cold.

 

You should go to a grieving family, one who might not have lost a loved one if AR-15s were not available (as a trained cop might have taken out the killer if he had only a handgun), and tell them, "But you don't understand! Fat old cosplay warriors need their ARs so they can fantasize about being Rambo, and don't you know how fun it is to target shoot with an AR-15? Surely your loved one's death is a small price to pay for letting the cosplay warrior have his fantasy!"

 

"You you you...'lefties'"  Blah blah blah.

 

FACT: According to both the FBI and DHS, more than 70% of all terrorist attacks in the US were carried out by 'righty' white supremacists since 2001.

 

Here's some names for you to consider, all of them 'righties'.....

 

Michael Estes, Curtis Allen, Gavin Wright, Patrick Stein, Adam Purinton, Jeremy Christian, Wade Page, Edgar Welch, Sam Woodward, James Fields, Dylann Roof, Robert Bowers, Ian David Long, Cesar Sayoc, Gregory Bush, Stephen Paddock, Christopher Hansson

 

Oh, and the greatest internal threat to our democratic institutions and elected officials was 6 Jan 2021, a terrorist act carried out by 'righty' and woefully gullible ignorant 45 supporters. It wasn't BLM. It wasn't antifa.  And certainly those insurrectionist terrorists, radicalized by a mendacious, self-serving, Narcissistic, corrupt buffoon, did not actually believe their pabulum (that's the correct spelling, BTW) about "Blue Lives Matter".