Shooting erupts at Colorado supermarket, bloodied man shown in handcuffs

[Yellowtail]

54 minutes ago, heybruce said:

"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.

 

"they" seem to be the majority here, and clearly some are from the US, yes?

 

To drive in the US (or at least in CA) as I understand it, you only have to be 16, pass a written test and show you can drive once. After that you go online and renew every five years. You used to be able to mail the renewal, not sure if you still can. I have not been to a DMV office in twenty years.

 

In the US, I  can buy as many cars as I want, and own as many cars I want without a license, without insurance, and without registering them. I am only limited by the amount of money I have and the space I have to put them. I can buy them and give them away, I can buy them and sell them, and I can buy them and keep them. I only need a license to drive on a public road, and only need to register a car that is operated on a public road.

 

Is this what you want with guns?

 

I went to a typical SoCal high school and the school had a rifle team. The school also offered the NRA Safe Hunter course, and students could qualify with a .22 and the M1. The .22s were fired in a hallway, with sandbags piled up at the end. I think they had to go to an actual range to fire the M1.  My how times change. 

[heybruce]

49 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

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?

 

Right, and a spoon is much more useful for digging a ditch than a fork, but both are the wrong tools for the job.  What's your point?

[heybruce]

34 minutes ago, pacovl46 said:

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. 

I'm all for laws mandating gun training and proper storage, but the gun lobby won't allow for sensible laws like that.

[heybruce]

34 minutes ago, pacovl46 said:

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! 

Really?  Do you have training for that kind of situation?

 

Are you confidant that everyone else who might jump up to shoot the shooter would be equally competent?

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

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.

 

I thought he was stopped, and I agree he may have done less damage with a hand gun. 

 

 

[heybruce]

27 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! 

"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"

 

No true.  Only seven states require some types of guns be registered.  The majority of guns in the US are unregistered and legal.

 

Even for the guns that are not legally owned were stolen from legal gun owners, many who do not adequately secure their weapons.

[heybruce]

10 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

"they" seem to be the majority here, and clearly some are from the US, yes?

 

To drive in the US (or at least in CA) as I understand it, you only have to be 16, pass a written test and show you can drive once. After that you go online and renew every five years. You used to be able to mail the renewal, not sure if you still can. I have not been to a DMV office in twenty years.

 

In the US, I  can buy as many cars as I want, and own as many cars I want without a license, without insurance, and without registering them. I am only limited by the amount of money I have and the space I have to put them. I can buy them and give them away, I can buy them and sell them, and I can buy them and keep them. I only need a license to drive on a public road, and only need to register a car that is operated on a public road.

 

Is this what you want with guns?

 

I went to a typical SoCal high school and the school had a rifle team. The school also offered the NRA Safe Hunter course, and students could qualify with a .22 and the M1. The .22s were fired in a hallway, with sandbags piled up at the end. I think they had to go to an actual range to fire the M1.  My how times change. 

I would supplement that with a mandatory gun safety course, but the written exam demonstrating knowledge of gun safety and laws, licensing of the gun users, registering all guns, revoking of gun licenses for those who use them in an illegal or irresponsible manner, criminal negligence charges and prosecution whenever negligence causes injury, mandatory insurance for gun owners, and assorted other laws that have equivalents with driving laws would be a good idea.

Edited March 26, 2021 by heybruce

[Yellowtail]

5 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Right, and a spoon is much more useful for digging a ditch than a fork, but both are the wrong tools for the job.  What's your point?

 

Well I guess it would depend on what you're digging your ditch for, if you're digging a dich for clams, a fork is much better. Is this how you want to play? 

 

My point was that your question is not clear.  You also implied I said something I did not say. But to be clear, I do think eliminating assault rifles would have NO impact on gun crime, I just do not think that impact would be significant.

 

My secondary point was that assault riles were not the most useless guns for hunting as (I think) you were saying, but that a hand gun would be much worse. In fact, the ARs are great for varmint hunting. 

 

[Yellowtail]

10 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I would supplement that with a mandatory gun safety course, but the written exam demonstrating knowledge of gun safety and laws, licensing of the gun users, registering all guns, revoking of gun licenses for those who use them in an illegal or irresponsible manner, criminal negligence charges and prosecution whenever negligence causes injury, mandatory insurance for gun owners, and assorted other laws that have equivalents with driving laws would be a good idea.

 

I agree with mush of that depending on the details, but I am against any gun laws that put a disproportionate burden on the poor. 

 

I think guns that are carried should have to be registered.  

[Eric Loh]

1 hour ago, pacovl46 said:

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! 

Careful you mght be shooting your own foot or mouth. Everyone think he is Rambo until he face the real situation and panic. 

Edited March 26, 2021 by Eric Loh
wrong word

[Walker88]

Obviously no minds are going to be changed. The US will continue to lead the world in senseless slaughter.

 

What will be next? Another school? Another church? Another shopping mall or food store? Another nightclub? Another outdoor concert? The key word is 'another', because surely there will be another....and another....and another. We'll have more 'thoughts and prayers' and we'll resurrect the same tired arguments about how only more guns will 'solve' the problem. The insurrectionists who stormed the Capitol on 6 January will continue to bark about 'standing up to tyranny', when they and their silly bloated love muffin was the tyrant, or tyrant wannabe, all haters of democracy if it meant their tyrant could---DID---lose.

 

Perhaps the civilized world will wise up at some point and ban Americans from entry into their nations.

Edited March 26, 2021 by Walker88

[heybruce]

45 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

Well I guess it would depend on what you're digging your ditch for, if you're digging a dich for clams, a fork is much better. Is this how you want to play? 

 

My point was that your question is not clear.  You also implied I said something I did not say. But to be clear, I do think eliminating assault rifles would have NO impact on gun crime, I just do not think that impact would be significant.

 

My secondary point was that assault riles were not the most useless guns for hunting as (I think) you were saying, but that a hand gun would be much worse. In fact, the ARs are great for varmint hunting. 

 

How many assault rifles are used to hunt varmints?

 

Would you agree to laws that limit assault rifles to rural areas and ban them from urban areas?

[heybruce]

39 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

I agree with mush of that depending on the details, but I am against any gun laws that put a disproportionate burden on the poor. 

 

I think guns that are carried should have to be registered.  

Why would licensing gun users and registering guns be any more of a burden on the poor than licensing drivers and registering automobiles?

[Yellowtail]

14 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Why would licensing gun users and registering guns be any more of a burden on the poor than licensing drivers and registering automobiles?

They should not be, that is my point. Driving is a car is said to be a privilege, while owning a firearm is a right.

 

The taxes, licensing, registration & training should be free, or at most nominal. 

 

Surly you agree the poor should have generally the same access to firearms as do the rich, yes? 

[Jeffr2]

18 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

They should not be, that is my point. Driving is a car is said to be a privilege, while owning a firearm is a right.

 

The taxes, licensing, registration & training should be free, or at most nominal. 

 

Surly you agree the poor should have generally the same access to firearms as do the rich, yes? 

Free?  Why?  Who's going to pay for it?  Out of my taxes and yours?  Forget it.

 

Gun training should be mandatory, at your expense.  Just like a drivers license.  And insurance should be mandatory.  Just like for cars.

[Yellowtail]

25 minutes ago, heybruce said:

How many assault rifles are used to hunt varmints?

 

Would you agree to laws that limit assault rifles to rural areas and ban them from urban areas?

 

I guess that would depend on how you define assault rifles. ARs are very popular for varmint hunting. Lightweight, easy to handle, fun to shoot and the ammo is cheap. Not an over-under .410/22-250, but the ARs are great. 

 

I would not agree to any law that seeks to ban or  authorize the sale or possession of ANYTHING unless it included a concrete description of whatever is being banned or authorized. 

 

Again, without a clear definition of rural and urban, and a clear definition or rural answering the question is impossible. And (as you have argued) people living in rural (red) areas can easily bring their weapons into urban (blue) areas. 

 

Are you saying than the people in rural areas are to be trusted while the people in urban areas should not? Should someone living in an urban area with a hunting cabin in the mountains be compelled to leave their  firearms in the cabin?

[Eric Loh]

24 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

They should not be, that is my point. Driving is a car is said to be a privilege, while owning a firearm is a right.

 

The taxes, licensing, registration & training should be free, or at most nominal. 

 

Surly you agree the poor should have generally the same access to firearms as do the rich, yes? 

You seem to lose the plot. You’re against mass shooting but suggest making easier for anyone to own firearms. Shouldn’t it tougher and more expensive ownership process? In fact, I advocate increased in import and sale taxes for guns and ammunitions to deter firearms proliferation. 

[Jeffr2]

14 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

I guess that would depend on how you define assault rifles. ARs are very popular for varmint hunting. Lightweight, easy to handle, fun to shoot and the ammo is cheap. Not an over-under .410/22-250, but the ARs are great. 

 

I would not agree to any law that seeks to ban or  authorize the sale or possession of ANYTHING unless it included a concrete description of whatever is being banned or authorized. 

 

Again, without a clear definition of rural and urban, and a clear definition or rural answering the question is impossible. And (as you have argued) people living in rural (red) areas can easily bring their weapons into urban (blue) areas. 

 

Are you saying than the people in rural areas are to be trusted while the people in urban areas should not? Should someone living in an urban area with a hunting cabin in the mountains be compelled to leave their  firearms in the cabin?

You obviously don't hunt.  No proper hunter would EVER use an AR.  Terrible aim.  Terrible gun for hunting.

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, Eric Loh said:

You seem to lose the plot. You’re against mass shooting but suggest making easier for anyone to own firearms. Shouldn’t it tougher and more expensive ownership process? In fact, I advocate increased in import and sale taxes for guns and ammunitions to deter firearms proliferation. 

 

Now your not being truthful. I am for making it more difficult to own a firearm,  I am not for making it more expensive. What you are advocating would make it easier, yet more expensive.

 

This is typical of the left. Put a big tax on something to keep it out of the hands of the poor (the people the left pretends to care about) while you can still afford all you want. 

 

So to you, the rich are protected by the second amendment, but the poor? Not so much. 

[Eric Loh]

8 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

Now your not being truthful. I am for making it more difficult to own a firearm,  I am not for making it more expensive. What you are advocating would make it easier, yet more expensive.

 

This is typical of the left. Put a big tax on something to keep it out of the hands of the poor (the people the left pretends to care about) while you can still afford all you want. 

 

So to you, the rich are protected by the second amendment, but the poor? Not so much. 

Nothing in your post that I can understand with all the contradictions. You are against taxation as a deterrent because the right and right leaning independents owned more than twice firearms as others. You are just protecting the typical second amendment right but threw in some disguised sympathy for the poor.

[Yellowtail]

33 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

Free?  Why?  Who's going to pay for it?  Out of my taxes and yours?  Forget it.

 

Gun training should be mandatory, at your expense.  Just like a drivers license.  And insurance should be mandatory.  Just like for cars.

 

Another leftist pretending to care about peoples lives. He's all for stricter gun control it as long as it only affects the poor, but as soon as it might affect him, or costs him a few dollars it becomes clear what he really cares about. 

 

I'm happy to see my tax dollars go to firearm safety training, as I actually care about firearm safety. You don't, I understand. 

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

They should not be, that is my point. Driving is a car is said to be a privilege, while owning a firearm is a right.

 

The taxes, licensing, registration & training should be free, or at most nominal. 

 

Surly you agree the poor should have generally the same access to firearms as do the rich, yes? 

Driving a car is a necessity for many.  Owning a firearm is not, for most.

 

Access to firearms should be limited only by a person's inability to use, maintain, and store the weapon responsibly and legally.  In the US the standard for what qualifies as responsible behavior with guns needs to be raised significantly.

 

[heybruce]

40 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

I guess that would depend on how you define assault rifles. ARs are very popular for varmint hunting. Lightweight, easy to handle, fun to shoot and the ammo is cheap. Not an over-under .410/22-250, but the ARs are great. 

 

I would not agree to any law that seeks to ban or  authorize the sale or possession of ANYTHING unless it included a concrete description of whatever is being banned or authorized. 

 

Again, without a clear definition of rural and urban, and a clear definition or rural answering the question is impossible. And (as you have argued) people living in rural (red) areas can easily bring their weapons into urban (blue) areas. 

 

Are you saying than the people in rural areas are to be trusted while the people in urban areas should not? Should someone living in an urban area with a hunting cabin in the mountains be compelled to leave their  firearms in the cabin?

Inside the boundaries of cities and towns is urban, outside is rural.  Easy.

 

Specifying a maximum magazine size and identifying and banning cartridges that are designed specifically for combat use, such as the .223, would eliminate most assault rifles.

 

People bringing assault rifles into urban areas would have to keep them out of sight or they would be confiscated.  Law abiding people would not risk losing their expensive rifles in such a manner, especially since the rifles would have no legitimate use in urban areas.

[Jeffr2]

30 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

Another leftist pretending to care about peoples lives. He's all for stricter gun control it as long as it only affects the poor, but as soon as it might affect him, or costs him a few dollars it becomes clear what he really cares about. 

 

I'm happy to see my tax dollars go to firearm safety training, as I actually care about firearm safety. You don't, I understand. 

Leftist?  Bad ASSumption.  I was a member of the NRA at age 5.  Went through all their hunter safety courses.  And pretty much guaranteed, have shot more animals and different types of guns than you have.

 

What's this got to do with rich vs. poor?  Doesn't make sense.

[Jeffr2]

This is what needs to stop.  Pure insanity.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/25/us/atlanta-publix-arrest.html

 

Rico Marley walked into a grocery store in midtown Atlanta on Wednesday afternoon carrying a guitar bag.

He headed for the men’s room, the authorities said, where he strapped on a bulletproof vest. He then donned a jacket, its pockets full of ammunition, and placed two loaded handguns in a left front pocket and two other loaded handguns in a right front pocket. In the guitar bag, he carried a 12-gauge shotgun, an AR-15 military-style rifle and a black ski mask.

Then he walked out into the store

[Thomas J]

4 hours ago, heybruce said:

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.

No that is not what I am arguing.  I totally support laws governing guns.  As a former gun owner do you really thing that gun owners as a group want guns misused.  All that does is put additional pressure for further regulation/confiscation.  What I have said, I can't determine "what laws" would have prevented ANY OF THE SHOOTERS who were involved in mass shootings from obtaining a firearm.  

Please tell me one piece of "gun control' legislation that would have stopped any of the shootings.  

[Yellowtail]

30 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Nothing in your post that I can understand with all the contradictions. You are against taxation as a deterrent because the right and right leaning independents owned more than twice firearms as others. You are just protecting the typical second amendment right but threw in some disguised sympathy for the poor.

 

Yes, given the quality of your responses, It's easy understand that you likely have difficulty understanding most anything you read. I will try to keep that in mind.. 

 

To be clear, the higher taxes only hurt poor people. They don't hurt rich people, be they on the right or the left.

 

You could make an argument that the higher taxes will also hurt suppliers and manufacturers, and you can argue the people that own these businesses are rich and greedy and that they deserve to be put out of business because guns are evil, but I don't think you are trying to make that argument. 

 

High taxes on firearms are no different than high taxes on alcohol, tobacco or gasoline. I imagine you support higher taxes on all these things, yet it only has any significant negative effect on the poor, the rich can continue to smoke, drink and drive all they want, although one would hope not at the same time.

[Yellowtail]

18 minutes ago, Jeffr2 said:

This is what needs to stop.  Pure insanity.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/25/us/atlanta-publix-arrest.html

 

Rico Marley walked into a grocery store in midtown Atlanta on Wednesday afternoon carrying a guitar bag.

He headed for the men’s room, the authorities said, where he strapped on a bulletproof vest. He then donned a jacket, its pockets full of ammunition, and placed two loaded handguns in a left front pocket and two other loaded handguns in a right front pocket. In the guitar bag, he carried a 12-gauge shotgun, an AR-15 military-style rifle and a black ski mask.

Then he walked out into the store

 

Time to outlaw guitar bags, yes? 

[Thomas J]

5 hours ago, heybruce said:

What legitimate purpose does a .223 assault rifle serve?

In many respects you and I are saying the same thing.  Pointing the finger at the AR-15 as a culprit is foolhardy.  Lets assume that it along with other lower caliber semi-automatic rifles are banned.  Does that mean then the person bent on mass shootings is OK to just purchase a ,270  30-06 or .308 semi automatic making the gun of choice even more powerful and deadly? 

The AK-47 is a 7.62 x 39 and at .32 caliber much more powerful than the AR-15.  So if banning the AR-15 is enacted the unintended consequence is likely to push the shooter to an even deadlier firearm. 

If you are going to shop mass shootings you have to stop the shooter not not his/her firearm of choice. 

The .223 caliber AR-15 would not be something I would own.  However he Mini-14 Ruger is identical in terms of caliber and function and many people use it to rid themselves of predators like Coyotes.  Ruger even makes one called the Ranch Model.  With cosmetic modifications a person can convert that Mini 14 with a military flash, pistol grip, foldable stock and presto you have the clone of an AR-15.  

I honestly don't know what will stop lunatics from wanting to enter a school or business with the intent of indiscriminately harming people.  However if you have a person who is an alcoholic and you ban Vodka do you really think that accomplishes anything.  They just gravitate to other alcohol.  The same is true for mass shooters.  

Most homicides in the USA by the way are not done by high capacity rifles.  Most are individual homicides that are gang/drug related and they use a handgun.  

Again, I truly believe responsible gun owners and the NRA would favor "effective" legislation and enforcement that stops those misusing guns.  They don't want the bad press and the political storm that follows from gun shootings.  However I don't know how you legislate and control ones moral compass that causes them to do evil things. 

[Thomas J]

16 hours ago, Sujo said:

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

No not deflection.  I actually think Thailand is safer than many areas in the USA.  With that said, I don't live in a crime ridden area in Bangkok and I might very well feel different if I did.  The same is true of the USA.  If I was living in Chappqua, NY or the Hamptons I would not have the same fear and hence the need if I was living in the Fort Green area of Brooklyn, New York. 

Again, you are confusing that somehow restricting a particular firearm will somehow stop a mass shooter and that the only purpose of a firearm is self defense.  I was a target shooter and had both rifles, shotguns, and handguns.  I enjoyed target shooting. 

I will challenge you,  which gun would you ban, what background check requirement would you enact to prevent the latest shooter or for that matter any of the others from obtaining a firearm.