Shooting erupts at Colorado supermarket, bloodied man shown in handcuffs

[Eric Loh]

34 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

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.

Poor has lowest firearms ownership. Why they need to buy firearms over food and shelter. Please give me a good reason. 
 

Manufacturers just passed the higher taxes to the consumers. They unlikely to be out of business. That is the purpose of higher taxes to raise prices that deterred buying.

 

Higher taxes for tobacco, alcohol or gasoline are not in discussion. Try not to divert and stay within the topic. 

[Yellowtail]

7 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Poor has lowest firearms ownership. Why they need to buy firearms over food and shelter. Please give me a good reason. 
 

Manufacturers just passed the higher taxes to the consumers. They unlikely to be out of business. That is the purpose of higher taxes to raise prices that deterred buying.

 

Higher taxes for tobacco, alcohol or gasoline are not in discussion. Try not to divert and stay within the topic. 

 

I do not understand your first two sentences. Are you saying that only a small percentage of the poor own guns? I guess that depends on how you define poor. I think a parent on public assistance that lives in a crime ridden area can scrape together the money to buy a semi-automatic .22, but if they had to pay a $500 tax, take a $500 training course, pay a $500 registration fee and then get insurance that costs another $500, they would just have to do without,  Depending on where you live, most people earning under $50K a year have little disposable income. 

 

What do you want me to give you a good reason for? 

 

I assume you mean manufactures just pass on the taxes they pay to the consumer. I agree with this generally, but if you put a $500 tax on an AR sale, the manufacturer can't pass that on because they do not pay it. Also, by significantly increasing the cost to the consumer, fewer people will buy them, yes? I mean the whole idea of the high tax is that so that fewer are sold, correct? If fewer are sold, the manufacturer has less revenue. They may or may not be driven out of business, but certainty they will suffer.  If you ban a particular gun or accessory, those manufacturers will likely go out of business. 

 

How is pointing out the hypocrisy of the left by mentioning the similarities between the regressive taxes levied against firearms to those levied against alcohol, tobaccos and gasoline deflection?  

 

You really should proofread your posts. 

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, Thomas J said:

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.  

As I posted earlier; a waiting period would have prevented the Atlanta murderer from killing those people the same day he bought the gun.  Perhaps if he'd been required to wait a few days he might have come to his senses.

 

A ban on assault rifles, or restrictions on having them in urban areas, would have prevented the Boulder murderer from using his weapon of choice.  That might have given the police officer on the scene a better chance of survival and stopping him.

[Thomas J]

2 minutes ago, heybruce said:

A ban on assault rifles, or restrictions on having them in urban areas, would have prevented the Boulder murderer from using his weapon of choice.  That might have given the police officer on the scene a better chance of survival and stopping him.

"might"  Now I will play devils advocate.  The shooter chose a .308 with a 30 round clip.  The shooter now has a far far far more powerful gun than the .223 round in the AR-15 and the policeman has even less of a chance of survival.  

Again, what law would prevent the shooter from obtaining 'ANY WEAPON'  Selecting the AR-15 is like banning a switchblade because it can kill you but allowing the sale of a Machete. 

Banning any specific weapon or category of weapons first off does not mean they are not available.  It only means that legal purchasers would not be able to obtain them.  Second, it only means that the person who wishes to kill other has to choose a different gun.  So what exactly was accomplished. 

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, Thomas J said:

"might"  Now I will play devils advocate.  The shooter chose a .308 with a 30 round clip.  The shooter now has a far far far more powerful gun than the .223 round in the AR-15 and the policeman has even less of a chance of survival.  

Again, what law would prevent the shooter from obtaining 'ANY WEAPON'  Selecting the AR-15 is like banning a switchblade because it can kill you but allowing the sale of a Machete. 

Banning any specific weapon or category of weapons first off does not mean they are not available.  It only means that legal purchasers would not be able to obtain them.  Second, it only means that the person who wishes to kill other has to choose a different gun.  So what exactly was accomplished. 

The switchblade vs machete example is quite good.  It is much easier to carry a switchblade without being noticed, not so easy to carry a machete unnoticed.  Also a machete, while it can be used as a weapon, is also a useful tool.  A switchblade has few legitimate uses, much like a .223 assault rifle.

 

Similarly it is much easier to carry a lightweight assault rifle, especially one with a folding stock, than a legitimate, heavy hunting rifle or a heavy .308 automatic rifle.

Edited March 26, 2021 by heybruce

[Yellowtail]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

As I posted earlier; a waiting period would have prevented the Atlanta murderer from killing those people the same day he bought the gun.  Perhaps if he'd been required to wait a few days he might have come to his senses.

 

A ban on assault rifles, or restrictions on having them in urban areas, would have prevented the Boulder murderer from using his weapon of choice.  That might have given the police officer on the scene a better chance of survival and stopping him.

 

I agree that a waiting period would have disallowed the shooter from killing people the same day he bought the weapon. And I agree that during that period he may well have changed his mind. He hay have even have killed himself. I think 15 days is pretty common, and I have no objection to waiting periods, particularly for first time buyers. But a waiting period makes little sense for someone that already has several firearms and they are just buying something new. 

 

While barring sales of the AR would have stopped the shooter from using his weapon of choice, he certainly could have used something else, and yes, this may or may not have reduced the number of deaths.  Anyone claiming it  absolutely would or would not save lives is either lying or foolish. 

 

I think allowing people in rural (red) areas to own them assault rifles, while disallowing people in urban (blue) areas is crazy. I think everyone that meets the guidelines to own one should be able to own one. I think private businesses including apartments and housing developments should be permitted to ban guns on their properties, but I do not think these rules should be imposed on existing tenants or owners. I also think it is fair to have restrictions regarding transportation and storage, and I support severe penalties violating existing gun laws.  

 

For me, it always comes back to the numbers. 40,000 gun deaths a year, 19,000 of them as a result of violent crimes, and the focus is on mass shootings which killed about 500 last year. Politicians want to be seen as doing something and do not seem to care that it will likely do nothing but get them reelected. There is no good argument for thirty round mags, just as there is no real argument against thirty round mags. But the argument against can claim they might save one life while dude is changing clips, no one can argue, so that will get pushed pushed through and a lot of blowhards will pat themselves on the back, and the killing will continue. After the next election it will be ten-round clips....

 

Forty years ago the push was to ban handguns. I do not support banning handguns, but I see the value, and it is easy to make a good argument to ban handguns. To argue banning handguns, you don't have to resort to calling people evil, stupid and heatless when they don't think saving 50 out of 40,000 lives should be the priority. 

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

The switchblade vs machete example is quite good.  It is much easier to carry a switchblade without being noticed, not so easy to carry a machete unnoticed.  Also a machete, while it can be used as a weapon, is also a useful tool.  A switchblade has few legitimate uses, much like a .223 assault rifle.

 

Similarly it is much easier to carry a lightweight assault rifle, especially one with a folding stock, than a legitimate, heavy hunting rifle or a heavy .308 automatic rifle.

 

It is pretty difficult to conceal a "lightweight assault rifle" with a thirty round clip. Actually, it's pretty difficult to conceal a thirty round clip. 

 

You saying there are no legitimate uses but that is just not correct. That they are light and easy to handle is one of the reasons they are so popular for sport. They are popular with women and you can carry them (and a hundred rounds of ammo) all day. Not for deal hunting but certainly popular for plinking and varminting. 

 

 

[pacovl46]

8 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

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

Are you the certified mind reader around here who knows exactly how everyone else would or would not react in certain situations? Guess not! 
 

 

[pacovl46]

9 hours ago, heybruce said:

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

Well, that’s stupid! Proper gun storage while you’re not home should be mandatory if you don’t carry your guns with you! 

[pacovl46]

9 hours ago, heybruce said:

"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.

Ok, let me rephrase it then, most shooting crimes are committed with guns that were not legally obtained by the shooter! Does that work for you?! 
 

Trust me, there’s no way the black market demand is satisfied with stolen guns only! 

[pacovl46]

9 hours ago, Jeffr2 said:

Right back at ya.

What you fail to realize is this:

 

Murders are committed under two circumstances only

 

1. It’s a heat of the moment thing where the murderer “loses” it and kills someone on the spot. In this particular case they’re seeing the proverbial red and aren’t capable of thinking about the consequences. They will use anything they can get their hands on in that particular moment to get the job done. Banning guns will not have an effect on the outcome of this particular situation! 
 

2. It’s a planned murder. In this case the murderer to be plans the crime accordingly so he/she hopefully won’t get caught. Since they have all the time in the world to make that plan they can use whatever. Therefore not having a gun at their disposal will just make them choose something else, therefore not having a gun will not prevent that particular type of murder either. 
 

So, saying less guns equals automatically less homicides is a wishful fantasy! If one wants to truly kill someone they’ll find a way! Getting rid of guns will NOT do the trick because as long as there’s a demand there will always be someone satisfying that demand if there’s money to be made. The best example for that is illegal drugs. Just because they made them illegal didn’t make them go away and neither will a gun ban make the guns disappear completely. It’s that simple!

[Thomas J]

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

Similarly it is much easier to carry a lightweight assault rifle, especially one with a folding stock, than a legitimate, heavy hunting rifle or a heavy .308 automatic rifle.

I don't know how much you know about rifles.  an AR-15 weighs 6.5 pounds.  A beefy Remington 742 semi-automatic chambered in .308 weighs 7.5 pounds.  I doubt the 1 pound difference will slow down the mass shooter. 

Second, any rifle, any caliber can be easily modified.  The attached picture shows the very common Remington hunting rifle.  Below is the same rifle after replacing it with a pistol grip and FOLDING STOCK.
 
 

[Thomas J]

1 hour ago, pacovl46 said:

So, saying less guns equals automatically less homicides is a wishful fantasy

So true, in April 2018 a person drove his vehicle in Toronto into a crowd of people killing 10 and injuring 15.   The Boston Bomber killed 3 and injured 260 using bombs make from a pressure cooker. On October 17, a man outside the World Trade Center deliberately drove into a crowd of people on a bicycle path killing 8.  In June 2016, a  person rented a cargo van, plowed into a crowd of people in Nice, France Killing 86 and injuring hundreds.  Timothy McVeigh demonstrated that with some common fertilizer and diesel fuel he could bring down a building  killing  and injuring 759.  

So unless you can somehow identify a person bent on attacking and have the grounds to stop them, it is grasping as smoke to think that it will stop the mass killings.  

[Scott]

Off-topic post reported and removed.

 

[sirineou]

4 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

So true, in April 2018 a person drove his vehicle in Toronto into a crowd of people killing 10 and injuring 15.   The Boston Bomber killed 3 and injured 260 using bombs make from a pressure cooker. On October 17, a man outside the World Trade Center deliberately drove into a crowd of people on a bicycle path killing 8.  In June 2016, a  person rented a cargo van, plowed into a crowd of people in Nice, France Killing 86 and injuring hundreds.  Timothy McVeigh demonstrated that with some common fertilizer and diesel fuel he could bring down a building  killing  and injuring 759.  

So unless you can somehow identify a person bent on attacking and have the grounds to stop them, it is grasping as smoke to think that it will stop the mass killings.  

Not true at all !!

You control the things you can,

and guns is a thing you can control. We will still have death by pressure cooker, and people still drive their cars into other people, and some might even drop pianos on other people from second store windows. 

But we control the things we can, 

 

[Thomas J]

9 hours ago, Jeffr2 said:

Gun training should be mandatory, at your expense.  Just like a drivers license

Gun training.  Are you suggesting that the shooters who kill people should become better marksmen?  Now that one wins the award for the most ludicrous suggestion to stop mass killings yet. 

[Thomas J]

37 minutes ago, sirineou said:

But we control the things we can, 

Ok but tell me. WHAT LAW you would pass "to control" as you put it the actions of this shooter or any other shooter.  How exactly would that prevent that person from obtaining a firearm and killing people.  I will wait for that answer.  

[Thomas J]

12 hours ago, Jeffr2 said:

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

There area total of approximately 38,000 gun deaths per year.  Of those 62% are suicides.  So tell me Jeffr2.  How exactly would your "gun control" stop those people who choose to take their own life.  Of the remaining 38%. 3% are accidental deaths and 35% are homicides.  Of those a portion are "justifiable" meaning police or civilians kill a bad guy.  Of the remainder almost all are "gang violence connected to drugs"  A study in New York of 50 homicides found 42 of them were gang/drug related. Mass shooting in the USA amounted to 211 in 2019.  Hardly the 100 per day you wish to peddle to create the false narrative. 

 

[Thomas J]

10 hours 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?

Tell me 1. define precisely what is 'AN ASSAULT RIFLE'  Using the much talked about AR-15 tell me exactly what makes it "more deadly" or function any differently than any other semi-automatic rifle of any caliber. 

Second, does the litmus test for guns in your mind mean they have to be used for hunting purposes otherwise they are to be banned?  I owned numerous firearms.  The vast majority only saw the target range and were never used to hunt anything nor were they likely to ever see the hunting field.  My Trap Gun weighed over 12 pounds. 

[Phoenix Rising]

Just now, Thomas J said:

Ok but tell me. WHAT LAW you would pass "to control" as you put it the actions of this shooter or any other shooter.  How exactly would that prevent that person from obtaining a firearm and killing people.  I will wait for that answer.  

This is what should be done:

 

1. All automatic and semi-automatic weapons should be outlawed and owners of such weapons should be required to hand in such weapons for a fair compensation.

2. ALL weapons should be registered.

3. Owners and buyers of legal weapons should be required to obtain a federal license and proper weapons storage.

4. Mandatory background checks and a one month waiting period for new purchases.

5. Using a gun while perpetrating a crime should carry a mandatory 20 years sentence.

6. Owning an unregistered weapon should carry a mandatory 10 years sentence.

 

Job done.

[Phoenix Rising]

6 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

There area total of approximately 38,000 gun deaths per year.  Of those 62% are suicides.  So tell me Jeffr2.  How exactly would your "gun control" stop those people who choose to take their own life.  Of the remaining 38%. 3% are accidental deaths and 35% are homicides.  Of those a portion are "justifiable" meaning police or civilians kill a bad guy.  Of the remainder almost all are "gang violence connected to drugs"  A study in New York of 50 homicides found 42 of them were gang/drug related. Mass shooting in the USA amounted to 211 in 2019.  Hardly the 100 per day you wish to peddle to create the false narrative. 

 

Your post would gain lots of credibility if all your claims were backed up by links to sources. As it is you're just throwing out numbers and unsubstantiated claims, eg:

"A study in New York of 50 homicides found 42 of them were gang/drug related."

Source and relevance??

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_in_2019

"There were 434 mass shootings in 2019 that fit the inclusion criteria of this article, resulting in 517 deaths and 1,643 injuries, for a total of 2,160 victims. Compared to the previous year, there were 111 more incidents."

[Thomas J]

8 minutes ago, Phoenix Rising said:

1. All automatic and semi-automatic weapons should be outlawed and owners of such weapons should be required to hand in such weapons for a fair compensation.

2. ALL weapons should be registered.

3. Owners and buyers of legal weapons should be required to obtain a federal license and proper weapons storage.

4. Mandatory background checks and a one month waiting period for new purchases.

5. Using a gun while perpetrating a crime should carry a mandatory 20 years sentence.

6. Owning an unregistered weapon should carry a mandatory 10 years sentence.

1. All Automatic firearms are banned.  Only available to the military or law enforcement.  You have to have a special federal license to procure automatic firearms and those are given to dealers who sell the law enforcement.  Semi-Automatic one shot one pull of the trigger is one of the most common firearms both rifle, pistol, and shotgun.  You would effectively be banning a huge proportion of the guns 
2. All guns are registered.  See LInk  This is required of every firearm sold.  So now back to you.  How does "knowing" who owns each firearm prevent someone using it to kill someone else. 
3.  What would be involved in getting a "federal license"  We already have a mandatory FBI background check required for each and every firearm purchased.  See Attached Link. So I have my guns and they are in storage and I now want to use them instead to kill someone.  I go to storage tell them I am going to the shooting range or hunting and instead go on a shooting rampage.  How did that stop anything? 
4. As mentioned we already have a mandatory background check.  As for the "waiting period" that was intended to stop killings that were spur of the moment and not planned out.  So I wait the month, get my firearm and then go on my killing spree.  How did that stop anything.
5. I agree. Now you are punishing the person who misused the gun. 
6. I agree anyone who "unlawfully" owns a firearm such as a convicted felon should be sent to prison.  Again, now we are on the same page.  You are punishing those who misuse. 

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/4473-part-1-firearms-transaction-record-over-counter-atf-form-53009/download

https://www.atf.gov/qa-category/national-instant-criminal-background-check-system-nics


 

[Yellowtail]

9 minutes ago, Phoenix Rising said:

Your post would gain lots of credibility if all your claims were backed up by links to sources. As it is you're just throwing out numbers and unsubstantiated claims, eg:

"A study in New York of 50 homicides found 42 of them were gang/drug related."

Source and relevance??

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mass_shootings_in_the_United_States_in_2019

"There were 434 mass shootings in 2019 that fit the inclusion criteria of this article, resulting in 517 deaths and 1,643 injuries, for a total of 2,160 victims. Compared to the previous year, there were 111 more incidents."

 

HeyBruce has already shown that at least with respect to firearms, the data on the Wikipedia site is unreelable. I was taken to task for trusting their data. 

 

I think the 212 came from a Newsweek article that showed the last nine years of date. In any event, the number of mass shootings changes depending on how you count them.  

 

 

[polpott]

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

HeyBruce has already shown that at least with respect to firearms, the data on the Wikipedia site is unreelable. I was taken to task for trusting their data. 

 

I think the 212 came from a Newsweek article that showed the last nine years of date. In any event, the number of mass shootings changes depending on how you count them.  

 

 

However you count them they're much more frequent than most other countries.

[Thomas J]

16 minutes ago, Phoenix Rising said:

our post would gain lots of credibility if all your claims were backed up by links to sources. As it is you're just throwing out numbers and unsubstantiated claims, eg:

I would do so but I got blasted by one of the site moderators for cutting and pasting "too many links"  In 2017, handguns were involved in the majority (64%) of the 10,982 U.S. gun murders and non-negligent manslaughters for which data is available, according to the FBI. Rifles – the category that includes many guns that are sometimes referred to as “assault weapons”– were involved in 4%.

As requested here they are. 

1. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/aug/21/jason-miyares/62-us-gun-deaths-are-suicides/

https://www.statista.com/statistics/251894/number-of-justifiable-homicides-in-the-us/

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/16/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/

 

https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/gun-violence-america

 

[Thomas J]

33 minutes ago, Phoenix Rising said:

Your post would gain lots of credibility if all your claims were backed up by links to sources. As it is you're just throwing out numbers and unsubstantiated claims, eg:

https://health.ucdavis.edu/what-you-can-do/facts.html
 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-29/us-mass-killings-hit-shocking-high-mark-in-2019/11831266

 

[polpott]

6 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

I would do so but I got blasted by one of the site moderators for cutting and pasting "too many links"  In 2017, handguns were involved in the majority (64%) of the 10,982 U.S. gun murders and non-negligent manslaughters for which data is available, according to the FBI. Rifles – the category that includes many guns that are sometimes referred to as “assault weapons”– were involved in 4%.

As requested here they are. 

1. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/aug/21/jason-miyares/62-us-gun-deaths-are-suicides/

https://www.statista.com/statistics/251894/number-of-justifiable-homicides-in-the-us/

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/16/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/

 

https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/gun-violence-america

 

The subject is mass shootings, do try to stay on topic.

[Yellowtail]

4 minutes ago, polpott said:

However you count them they're much more frequent than most other countries.

 

I was only commenting that they the numbers change depending on how they are counted, so implying someone is lying because their numbers don't match someone else's is not fair.

 

In any event, while 500 is a lot more than 200, comparing 500 to 40,000 is not much different than comparing 200 to 40,000. It's just putting it into perspective. To me, it would make more sense to focus on the 40,000 than the 500, but that's just me, I'm not a leftist. Let's go after those 500.

[polpott]

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

 

I was only commenting that they the numbers change depending on how they are counted, so implying someone is lying because their numbers don't match someone else's is not fair.

 

In any event, while 500 is a lot more than 200, comparing 500 to 40,000 is not much different than comparing 200 to 40,000. It's just putting it into perspective. To me, it would make more sense to focus on the 40,000 than the 500, but that's just me, I'm not a leftist. Let's go after those 500.

 Not really relevant to mass shootings. A skill that the US excels in.

 

In the UK we had 2 mass shootings and on the back of that the government brought in very strict gun laws, which removed guns from the hands of Joe Public, good guys and bad guys alike. There were many gun hobbyists in the UK who weren't too happy. But they sucked it up to eradicate mass shootings.

[Thomas J]

6 minutes ago, polpott said:

The subject is mass shootings, do try to stay on topic.

So mass shootings are not homicides.  The quote by one other on the site that gun deaths are 100 per day.  Those are all Mass Shootings.