Shooting erupts at Colorado supermarket, bloodied man shown in handcuffs

[jvs]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

We could save at least 1,000 live a year by reducing the speed limit in the US by five miles an hour, why don't we do that?

Would that stop the gun deaths?

[Phoenix Rising]

13 hours 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.  

 

 

Still doesn't mean you can just throw numbers out there without any links to sources and expect to be believed.

[Phoenix Rising]

13 hours ago, Thomas J said:

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

 

Good, just underscores the need for strict gun control measures.

Edited March 27, 2021 by Phoenix Rising

[Thomas J]

2 hours ago, Jeffr2 said:

Perhaps you need to research what mass shooting are. 

Perhaps you need to do study some English.  There are 38,000 "deaths" from firearms annually in the USA.  Of those 62% are SUCICIDE not homicide.  There are approximately 11,000 homicides each year using a firearm.  Those are not 'MASS SHOOTINGS"  in 2019 deaths from Mass Shootings were 211.  So math was not your strong suit.  Even if you take the 11,000 homicides that is 30 not 100 per day.  Or somehow are you foolish enough to think that somehow banning the AR-15 will stop the suicides. 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/249803/number-of-homicides-by-firearm-in-the-united-states/

[Thomas J]

23 minutes ago, Phoenix Rising said:

Good, just underscores the need for strict gun control measures.

Again "Strict gun control measures"  That is like saying bunches and lots?  I challenge you. what gun control measure would prevent a deranged person from acquiring a firearm.  

Exactly what Law(s) would you pass to stop any of the mass shooters.  

[Phoenix Rising]

1 minute ago, Thomas J said:

Again "Strict gun control measures"  That is like saying bunches and lots?  I challenge you. what gun control measure would prevent a deranged person from acquiring a firearm.  

Exactly what Law(s) would you pass to stop any of the mass shooters.  

See my previous post (which you replied to) where I listed some measures that could be a good starting point.

[jvs]

1 minute ago, Thomas J said:

Exactly what Law(s) would you pass to stop any of the mass shooters.  

Very good point,not an easy one to answer.

A carefully planned mass murder(shooting or otherwise)is very difficult to prevent.

Sometimes it is a schoolkid,not even legal to vote and flying under the radar.Grabs daddys gun and ammo and there you have it.

What if there is no gun and no ammo?The killing will be not so easy no matter what you say.

This killing could happen in the spur of the moment,i have no idea how to prevent it if there is a gun available.

It will haveto be a democratic solution,like in traffic,a few drive like and idiot,every one faces the same rules.

Fair or not?Those are the rules of  civilized countries all over the world.

[Eric Loh]

12 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

Again "Strict gun control measures"  That is like saying bunches and lots?  I challenge you. what gun control measure would prevent a deranged person from acquiring a firearm.  

Exactly what Law(s) would you pass to stop any of the mass shooters.  

Do you agree that stricter gun control should be a non partisan issue. 

[Thomas J]

36 minutes ago, Phoenix Rising said:

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.

It doesn't and neither does a car registry prevent people from driving drunk but it it's a proof of ownership, which has obvious advantages.

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. 

That is not correct:
"For private sales, any person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of the same state as long as they do not know or do not have reasonable cause to believe the purchaser is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under federal law.[3][4][5]"

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

 

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?
It doesn't but it will prevent kids and thieves from getting easy access to them. 

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.

Now you're being purposefully disingenuous. There is now way to find out how many lives have been spared by having a waiting period and you know it.

Nothing will stop someone who plans months in advance but the vast majority of mass shootings do not seem to be carefully planned events.

Please explain with the federal government recording each and every gun purchase how that differs from a registry.  They have a complete record of what gun, its serial number your name address, and the model number of the gun.  

Yes private sales are excluded.  I would not object to their being some form of background check for those also.  With that said. PLEASE IDENTIFY ONE MASS SHOOTER that purchased their guns at a gun show.  

In terms of preventing accidental deaths.  Yes having guns locked up might prevent those.  However the total number of lives is not the pandemic that you would like to portray. 
 

At least 73 juveniles under age 12 were killed last year, roughly the same pace as the previous five years. What happened next varied widely.

A 2017 USA TODAY and Associated Press investigation of the 152 deaths from 2014 to 2016 found about half ended in a criminal charge, usually of adults who police said should have watched children more closely or secured their guns more carefully.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2019/03/19/gun-deaths-shooting-accidents-killed-73-kids-last-year/3032060002/

Finally the shooter in Colorado  purchased his firearm 6 days prior.  So it was hardly a spur of the moment decision.  

I guess you think that the man in Las Vegas who took multiple guns to the hotel overlooking a music festival 'WAS NOT PLANNED'  Or the San Bernardino shooters just happened to go berserk one day. Now how about Ft. Hood I guess he didn't plan either.  



 

 

[Yellowtail]

57 minutes ago, jvs said:

Would that stop the gun deaths?

 

Exactly, we're only interested in saving lives that forward the agenda.

[Eric Loh]

11 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

Please explain with the federal government recording each and every gun purchase how that differs from a registry. 

 
I don’t think there is a National registry that links you to a firearm at the present moment. Hope I am right on this. 

 

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, polpott said:

from the same source:

 

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20210315/victory-in-colorado-preemption-case

 

"On Friday evening, a judge in the Centennial state gave law-abiding gun owners something to celebrate. He ruled that the city of Boulder’s ban on possessing and transferring commonly-possessed “assault weapons” and ten-round magazines was preempted by state law and struck them down. This was an NRA-ILA supported case."

 

Only in America. Insane.

 

So it's your position that the judge should ignore the law?

 

I thinks it's amusing that because you guys had your guns taken away you want ours taken away as well. If you can't have one, nobody can right? 

[Phoenix Rising]

17 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

Please explain with the federal government recording each and every gun purchase how that differs from a registry.  They have a complete record of what gun, its serial number your name address, and the model number of the gun.  

Yes private sales are excluded.  I would not object to their being some form of background check for those also.  With that said. PLEASE IDENTIFY ONE MASS SHOOTER that purchased their guns at a gun show.  

In terms of preventing accidental deaths.  Yes having guns locked up might prevent those.  However the total number of lives is not the pandemic that you would like to portray. 
 

At least 73 juveniles under age 12 were killed last year, roughly the same pace as the previous five years. What happened next varied widely.

A 2017 USA TODAY and Associated Press investigation of the 152 deaths from 2014 to 2016 found about half ended in a criminal charge, usually of adults who police said should have watched children more closely or secured their guns more carefully.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2019/03/19/gun-deaths-shooting-accidents-killed-73-kids-last-year/3032060002/

Finally the shooter in Colorado  purchased his firearm 6 days prior.  So it was hardly a spur of the moment decision.  

I guess you think that the man in Las Vegas who took multiple guns to the hotel overlooking a music festival 'WAS NOT PLANNED'  

If strict limitations to gun ownership (and certainly no access to semi-automatic weapons) does not prevent killings then please explain why the US is sticking out like a sore thumb when compared to other developed countries.

[Phoenix Rising]

5 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

So it's your position that the judge should ignore the law?

 

I thinks it's amusing that because you guys had your guns taken away you want ours taken away as well. If you can't have one, nobody can right? 

Is that your takeaway?? What would be the motivation for the majority of Americans that are for stricter gun laws? Is that spite as well?

[ExpatOK]

1 hour ago, EVENKEEL said:

One of my first things to do upon arrival in the US is to buy some guns. Couple of handguns, a few shotguns and a couple rifles. 

If I were moving to the US, I would do the same.  2A is still intact and is not going away.

Edited March 27, 2021 by ExpatOK

[Eric Loh]

13 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

So it's your position that the judge should ignore the law?

 

I thinks it's amusing that because you guys had your guns taken away you want ours taken away as well. If you can't have one, nobody can right? 

Why the concern when you don’t even own a gun. 

[Thomas J]

4 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

I don’t think there is a National registry that links you to a firearm at the present moment. Hope I am right on this. 

Two things 1. at present there is form 4473 that records each and every gun purchase.  Type of firearm, serial number and the purchasers information.  Those account for 78% of the total guns sold annually.  The remaining 22% are private sales.  There probably are some ways to incorporate the requirement there as well.  With that said, you know have the "perfect" list of who owns what guns.  What do you do with that?  How does knowing who owns guns stop firearms deaths.  The best it can do it determine after the crime where the gun was sold. 

https://www.atf.gov/firearms/atf-form-4473-firearms-transaction-record-revisions

Second, there is a requirement for an FBI NICS background check.  This is to prevent criminals from obtaining guns.  https://www.atf.gov/qa-category/national-instant-criminal-background-check-system-nics



Now tell me what sense this makes 112,000 people were denied being able to purchase a firearm.  Do you know what happens to them.  NOTHING. 

Of the 112,000 denials 12.710 were "investigated" by the ATF resulting in 12 prosecutions.  

 

So now you have  a system suppose to stop bad people from having guns.  The system works and 112,000 people identified and the system does nothing?  Those are the people who should be prosecuted if they knowingly were ineligible for owning a gun but attempted it.  

This is what frustrates gun owners is that more laws are being proposed but the ones already in place are not enforced. 



https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-18-440.pdf


https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-18-440.pdf
 

[Sujo]

2 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

One of my first things to do upon arrival in the US is to buy some guns. Couple of handguns, a few shotguns and a couple rifles. 

I understand. Trump really did leave the US a lot worse for you.

[Thomas J]

14 minutes ago, Phoenix Rising said:

f strict limitations to gun ownership (and certainly no access to semi-automatic weapons) does not prevent killings then please explain why the US is sticking out like a sore thumb when compared to other developed countries.

For the same reason that Kennesaw Georgia ( a suburb of Atlanta) which mandates each and every citizen MUST OWN A GUN has this result, and Mexico which makes legal ownership of a gun near impossible has this result.  The vast majority of the gun homicides are done with a handgun not a shotgun or rifle.  The vast majority are in urban areas, and 42% of all gun homicides are related to drug trafficking. 

It is sad to say, but whether the character of the people in the USA is less respectful of obeying laws, authority figures like police, and valuing human life.  The Swiss are a perfect example of the opposite.  They have a very high rate of gun ownership but no mass shootings.   If there was a correlation to percentage of guns owned and people Switzerland should be high also and Kennesaw Georgia's rate should be off the charts. 

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mexicans-have-the-right-to-own-guns-but-few-do/


 

 

 

[jvs]

38 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

Exactly, we're only interested in saving lives that forward the agenda.

Exactly.

[Yellowtail]

22 minutes ago, Phoenix Rising said:

Is that your takeaway?? What would be the motivation for the majority of Americans that are for stricter gun laws? Is that spite as well?

 

Do you understand the way the court is supposed to work in the US? If the judge believes what is brought before him violates a higher law, it their responsibility to dismiss it. Judges are not supposed to decide what should and should not be the law, it is there job to interpret it as it is written. 

 

Did you read from the same link: "The city council should have listened to the city attorney. His repeated attempts to warn them that they did not have the authority to pass these ordinances were cited throughout the opinion. The opinion is also very thoroughly and thoughtfully written, which will make it even harder to overturn, should the city appeal it."

 

So apparently it was just a city council wasting time and money trying to make the news and look like the are doing something. 

 

It makes not difference hat the American public wants, it is not the judges to decide.

 

I support "common sense" gun laws, as do most Americans, but most Americans, myself included, do not believe in confiscation which is what most people pushing for "common sense" gun lows want. It is what you want, yes?

 

 

[Yellowtail]

44 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

Why the concern when you don’t even own a gun. 

 

This attitude sums it up perfectly.  He can't comprehend someone caring about something or someone other than themselves. 

 

I don't have guns, but I respect the rights of people that do have guns. You don't have guns, so you care nothing about the rights of the people that do have guns. 

 

Typical

 

 

[Phoenix Rising]

30 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

It is sad to say, but whether the character of the people in the USA is less respectful of obeying laws, authority figures like police, and valuing human life.  The Swiss are a perfect example of the opposite.  They have a very high rate of gun ownership but no mass shootings

All the more reason to limit Americans' access to guns then.

[Thomas J]

1 hour ago, jvs said:

Very good point,not an easy one to answer.

A carefully planned mass murder(shooting or otherwise)is very difficult to prevent.

Many years ago I worked for a bank that was failing due to the oil crisis and its lending to the oil patch.  They came out with a entire list of what they were going to do to save the bank.  I said to one of the other managers, this does nothing to rectify the problems.  He laughed and said, remember, most "actions are instituted to create the ILLUSION of progress" 

The same is true here.  You have politicians who wish to show "they are doing "something" even if that something accomplishes nothing.  

A case in point is on background checks.  I see numerous posts here calling for a more extensive universal background check.   OK even with the current system the National Instant Criminal Background System prevented 112,090 people from purchasing a gun.  What was the result?  The Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms field agents investigated only 12.710 of those and it resulted in 12 prosecutions for knowingly attempting to illegally possess a gun.

Now wouldn't it make sense that if the 'INTENT' was really to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them, that when the system works and identifies people who most likely are a danger to others, and in the event they attempted to purchase a gun, knowing they were not eligible that they go to jail? 

If firearms were the culprit, those areas of the USA with high gun ownership rates would show high crime and homicide rates.  Those with low rates of gun ownership and stringent restrictions would have few.  
It is exactly the opposite.  New York, Chicago, and LA all have stringent rules and far fewer firearms per capita than 

Here are the states with the highest gun per capita rate. 

• Alaska, 61.7%
• Arkansas, 57.9.
• Idaho, 56.9%
• West Virginia, 54.2%
• Wyoming, 53.8%
• Montana, 52.3%
• New Mexico, 49.%
• Alabama, 48.9%
  
  Do you see any of those states being the ones with the most problems from gun violence? 
  
   

Edited March 27, 2021 by Thomas J

[Phoenix Rising]

19 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

Do you understand the way the court is supposed to work in the US? If the judge believes what is brought before him violates a higher law, it their responsibility to dismiss it. Judges are not supposed to decide what should and should not be the law, it is there job to interpret it as it is written. 

 

Did you read from the same link: "The city council should have listened to the city attorney. His repeated attempts to warn them that they did not have the authority to pass these ordinances were cited throughout the opinion. The opinion is also very thoroughly and thoughtfully written, which will make it even harder to overturn, should the city appeal it."

 

So apparently it was just a city council wasting time and money trying to make the news and look like the are doing something. 

 

It makes not difference hat the American public wants, it is not the judges to decide.

 

I support "common sense" gun laws, as do most Americans, but most Americans, myself included, do not believe in confiscation which is what most people pushing for "common sense" gun lows want. It is what you want, yes?

 

 

That wasn't a reply to my post, I have not mentioned this court case at all.

[Surelynot]

8 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

OK even with the current system the National Instant Criminal Background System prevented 112,090 people from purchasing a gun.  What was the result? 

......112,090 people who should not be in possession of gun were prevented from owning one?......not a bad result.

[jvs]

16 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

Many years ago I worked for a bank that was failing due to the oil crisis and its lending to the oil patch.  They came out with a entire list of what they were going to do to save the bank.  I said to one of the other managers, this does nothing to rectify the problems.  He laughed and said, remember, most "actions are instituted to create the ILLUSION of progress" 

The same is true here.  You have politicians who wish to show "they are doing "something" even if that something accomplishes nothing.  

A case in point is on background checks.  I see numerous posts here calling for a more extensive universal background check.   OK even with the current system the National Instant Criminal Background System prevented 112,090 people from purchasing a gun.  What was the result?  The Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms field agents investigated only 12.710 of those and it resulted in 12 prosecutions for knowingly attempting to illegally possess a gun.

Now wouldn't it make sense that if the 'INTENT' was really to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them, that when the system works and identifies people who most likely are a danger to others, and in the event they attempted to purchase a gun, knowing they were not eligible that they go to jail? 

If firearms were the culprit, those areas of the USA with high gun ownership rates would show high crime and homicide rates.  Those with low rates of gun ownership and stringent restrictions would have few.  
It is exactly the opposite.  New York, Chicago, and LA all have stringent rules and far fewer firearms per capita than 

Here are the states with the highest gun per capita rate. 

• Alaska, 61.7%
• Arkansas, 57.9.
• Idaho, 56.9%
• West Virginia, 54.2%
• Wyoming, 53.8%
• Montana, 52.3%
• New Mexico, 49.%
• Alabama, 48.9%
  
  Do you see any of those states being the ones with the most problems from gun violence? 
  
   

So who is doing the shooting?

[Phoenix Rising]

On 3/26/2021 at 7:20 AM, 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?

I think that in all likelihood turns into a "good guys with guns kill good guys with and without guns" scenario.

[polpott]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

It makes not difference hat the American public wants, it is not the judges to decide.

Someone had to bring it to court for the judge to make a ruling. Who took it to court? The NRA.

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, polpott said:

Someone had to bring it to court for the judge to make a ruling. Who took it to court? The NRA.

 

Do you understand the way the court is supposed to work in the US? If the judge believes what is brought before him violates a higher law, it their responsibility to dismiss it. Judges are not supposed to decide what should and should not be the law, it is there job to interpret it as it is written. 

 

Did you read from your link: "The city council should have listened to the city attorney. His repeated attempts to warn them that they did not have the authority to pass these ordinances were cited throughout the opinion. The opinion is also very thoroughly and thoughtfully written, which will make it even harder to overturn, should the city appeal it."

 

So apparently it was just a city council wasting time and money trying to make the news and look like the are doing something.