Shooting erupts at Colorado supermarket, bloodied man shown in handcuffs

[pacovl46]

13 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Same for drugs. Death penalty. No issue when enforced.

 

Thought repubs where law and order types.

That’s wishful thinking! Three strikes and you’re doing life in the US and yet prisons are filled with people because of drug related crimes! Death penalty doesn’t do anything in terms of deterring crimes! 
 

Take Singapore for example, I remember a case there where a father of two little children smuggled 100 grams of marijuana into the country. They caught him, he got the death penalty and they executed him. He knew they would do that if they caught him and still he did it. 

Or take China, they catch you there then you go to trial, if found guilty they take you out back and shoot you in the back of the head, no appeals, no nothing. People there know that and they still they sell drugs because the profits to be made are just too tempting.

 

Death penalty is just a massive waste of tax payers money because a death penalty inmate costs the state a lot more money than someone who does literally a life sentence without possibility of parole. 

Edited March 27, 2021 by pacovl46

[Thomas J]

45 minutes ago, Sujo said:

So get rid of guns. More lives saved. Winning

Using that logic, get rid of alcohol "more lives saved". Get rid of illegal drugs. "more lives saved"  Get rid of cigarettes, " more lives saved"  Get rid of knives "more lives saved" Get rid of hammers "more lives saved"  

Particularly when more homicides are done with a blunt object such as a hammer than the rifles that the anti-gun people want to ban.  What should we ban first, the sledge hammer or the claw hammer. 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/

Edited March 27, 2021 by Thomas J

[Thomas J]

40 minutes ago, pacovl46 said:

Death penalty is just a massive waste of tax payers money because a death penalty inmate costs the state a lot more money than someone who does literally a life sentence without possibility of parole. 

I agree it currently is a massive waste of taxpayer dollars.  The bar association has turned contesting death penalty cases into a cash cow business.  I am not sure we ever will know if the death penalty is a deterrent.  The biggest deterrent is the perception the perpetrator has of being apprehended.  Assuming that the government could swiftly apprehend the majority of people deserving of the death penalty and that the penalty be done swiftly. It might have an effect.  However at the present time, there is still the belief that the person won't get caught and even if caught they will likely spend their life in prison rather than ever walking down death row to their death.  

However in the case of those misusing a firearm, or dealing drugs, the punishment should be severe.  Right now there is this mindset of "rehabilitation" and people with multiple offenses being given yet more chances.  That just breeds a mindset that the law is inept and they will always give me another chance. 

[stevenl]

12 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

Using that logic, get rid of alcohol "more lives saved". Get rid of illegal drugs. "more lives saved"  Get rid of cigarettes, " more lives saved"  Get rid of knives "more lives saved" Get rid of hammers "more lives saved"  

Particularly when more homicides are done with a blunt object such as a hammer than the rifles that the anti-gun people want to ban.  What should we ban first, the sledge hammer or the claw hammer. 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/

Do you still not understand the difference between products made to kill, like guns, and other products like cars, tennis rackets and alcohol?

[candide]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

Once again, plinking and target shooting and varmint hunting do not require an assault rifle.  These seem to be the only legitimate purposes you can find for assault rifles, and there are better guns for these purposes.

 

I'm sure some people would enjoy using a flame thrower, and they could probably think of 'legitimate uses', such as clearing brush and rodent infestations.  However that doesn't mean it's a good idea to make flame throwers legal and available to the general public, does it?

Shh! Don't give them ideas!

[Yellowtail]

50 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Do you still not understand the difference between products made to kill, like guns, and other products like cars, tennis rackets and alcohol?

 

Guns are no more made to kill people that are knives. Killing people is only one of the things you can use them for, and far and away people use them for things other than killing people. 

[Jingthing]

47 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

Guns are no more made to kill people that are knives. Killing people is only one of the things you can use them for, and far and away people use them for things other than killing people. 

Sure thing. But they're really, really efficient at killing people, yeah?

Opinion | Yes, motive matters in mass shootings. But not as much as means. - The Washington Post

 

 

[Yellowtail]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

Once again, plinking and target shooting and varmint hunting do not require an assault rifle.  These seem to be the only legitimate purposes you can find for assault rifles, and there are better guns for these purposes.

 

I'm sure some people would enjoy using a flame thrower, and they could probably think of 'legitimate uses', such as clearing brush and rodent infestations.  However that doesn't mean it's a good idea to make flame throwers legal and available to the general public, does it?

. 

Cutting your grass does not require a power mower, and using a push-mower is better for your health and better for your grass, but even though 800 kids a year are run over by them, some of those kids killed and 600 ending up maimed people still love those power mowers. The only difference is that BOTH sides of the aisle like power mowers. 

 

Incidentally, we had a homemade flamethrower for burning weeds along the fence and whatnot. That thing was pretty bad-as$ 

 

But comparing using a military grade flamethrower for burning weeds with an AR-15 for plinking is apples and oranges. Firing an AR-15 is no more difficult or dangerous than firing any semi-automatic rife.

 

You have handled guns, and you are familiar with  the .22-250, yes?  Been around at least 80 years. Is there anything you can kill with an AR-15 you can't kill with a .22-250? 

 

 

 

 

[jvs]

3 hours ago, pacovl46 said:

Death penalty doesn’t deter anything because murders are either committed in the heat of the moment where the murderer isn’t capable of thinking about the consequences or it’s a planned murder and they usually plan it accordingly to hopefully not getting caught and therefore the death penalty doesn’t apply to them from their point of view.

 

Also, if the death penalty would really deter murders then there wouldn’t be any murders in the country, apart from passion murders. That alone already proves that it doesn’t deter!  
 

Good luck trying to take away the right to bear arms from US citizens! That’s never going to happen!

In the event of it happening,the law was changed so citizens can no longer own guns except for special cases,would you abide by it?I am saying if the second amendment was amended so by law you could no longer own a gun,would you give up your gun?

[Yellowtail]

38 minutes ago, jvs said:

In the event of it happening,the law was changed so citizens can no longer own guns except for special cases,would you abide by it?I am saying if the second amendment was amended so by law you could no longer own a gun,would you give up your gun?

 

If the Constitution were amended to repeal the second amendment most everyone would turn in their guns, but I doubt that will happen in my lifetime. 

 

The current push will likely ban large cap clips and some other feel-good nonsense that they can use to beat up the right with, but nothing of any substance will come of it. 

[heybruce]

8 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

 

Your response was to say I had not credibility, and claimed the source you linked to proved me wrong. It did not. The data table you linked to matched the Wiki data table where I originally go the data. 

 

I used the data from Wiki to make the statement, but did not link to it. I subsequently agreed with you that both your source and wiki were wrong, and I apologize. I then made the same comparison using different states with similar results and you ignored it. 

 

My only point was that there does not seem to be a correlation between gun ownership rates and gun homicide rates.

 

Why should the gun homicide rate be any higher in urban (blue) areas that rural (red) areas? Why is that apples and oranges? If anything it should be lower.

Why are gun homicide rates higher among men than women?  Why are gun homicide rates higher among poor people than rich people?  Why are gun homicide rates higher in the US than Canada?  We could debate causes endlessly, just as we could debate the cause for gun homicide rates being higher in urban areas than rural areas. 

 

However the fact remains that these correlations exist, and comparisons that ignore them are invalid.

[heybruce]

8 hours ago, pacovl46 said:

No, it’s you who’s missing my point, that’s a good thing, though, by the way, because you don’t think like a criminal. So, let me lay it out for you. If you were a member of a gang you sure as hell wouldn’t use a legally bought gun to do your drive-by because that gun could be traced back to you, if the cops get their hands on it or if you were to use the same gun for multiple crimes and they cops could catch you with the gun and get their hands on the bullets fired from your gun during said crimes. That’s why the shooters with brain use a gun only once and then throw it away and get another one, which they buy on the black market. Again, private sales and stolen guns don’t cover the demand of the criminal world. Trust me, there is a massive black market for guns in the US! 

There are two flaws in your argument:

 

1.  As I've already stated, cash purchases of guns with no documentation of the exchange are common and legal in the US.  The only guns that might be considered 'black market' are those that have been illegally modified or registered with the police as stolen.  These are the minority of guns in the US.  Check a few dozen news stories about gun crimes in the US; you will find few if any mention the gun being illegally obtained or modified.

 

2.  You assume the people who use guns to commit crimes have the intelligence to dispose of the weapon after each crime and the resources to easily replace it.  Some times they do, often times they don't.

 

What evidence do you have of a "massive black market for guns in the US"?  Are you in the US?  Have you ever been to a large gun show in the US?  If you had you would have seen hundreds of private parties selling an astounding variety of guns for cash with no documentation required.  If the gun show happens to be in a place that requires some documentation for sells during the show, the purchaser and vendor can simply arrange to meet and make the sell sometime after the show.

 

If you have cash you can easily, legally buy a gun in most parts of the US.

[heybruce]

8 hours ago, Thomas J said:

JVS  

I guess it depends on what you consider a "shooting"  62% of all deaths by Firearm are a suicide. 3% are accidental and 35% are homicides.  The homicide figure includes both justifiable homicides by police and civilians as well as true killings.  Of those the vast majority of deaths occur from handguns  As you can see from the attached, more people are killed using knives, other weapons, blunt objects like hammers and fists and feet than rifles.  

So does that mean you "regulate hammers" or have a limited size to knives as well.   Again, to beat a dead horse, focusing on the weapon used and not focusing on how to identify and take action against those who is bent on doing harm is a fools journey.  At best it will force those who wish to do harm to others to choose a different instrument of death. 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/16/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/

 

 

"focusing on the weapon used and not focusing on how to identify and take action against those who is bent on doing harm is a fools journey"

 

Yes, identifying those who are destined to commit a violent crime before they commit it is the ideal solution.  It is also very difficult.

 

Depriving those intent on doing harm of tools designed with the purpose of killing from a distance will limit the ability of these people to do harm.  It also would limit the damage done by people who don't plan to commit violence, but are prone to outbreaks of rage.

[heybruce]

8 hours ago, pacovl46 said:

Yes, but there is already a black market in the country and banning legal guns won’t accomplish anything because of the illegal guns used by criminals! Again, look at drugs! They’re illegal and available everywhere because of the demand and the huge profits that can be made with them, same goes for guns! 

Once again, the black market for guns in the US is not large because it doesn't have to be.  Also, most crimes are not committed by clever masterminds who plan in advance, they are committed by idiots who don't consider the consequences of their actions.

 

Drugs are a lot easier to smuggle and keep hidden than guns.  You can't stick a handgun in a condom and  shove it up your rectum.

[heybruce]

8 hours ago, pacovl46 said:

As long as you’re in the house, too, or have it on you that’s not a problem, but if I spent money on a gun and I’d leave the house without it, I’d make sure it’s locked up to not get it stolen because I wouldn’t want lose the gun nor the money I spent on it. Those are easy fixes, though. Make gun safes mandatory! Obviously there’s lots that needs to be fixed! 

Now you are arguing for sensible laws regarding the secure storage of weapons. The NRA and Republicans will not allow such laws in the US.

[heybruce]

6 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

 

Guns are no more made to kill people that are knives. Killing people is only one of the things you can use them for, and far and away people use them for things other than killing people. 

I've used knives many times to slice tomatoes, and not once to kill someone.

 

I've never sliced a tomato with a gun.

 

The only 'essential' function of a gun is killing.  Plinking and target shooting are exercises to refine the killing ability of the shooter.  There is a reason why many paper targets used at gun ranges are silhouettes of the upper body of a man.  People doing the plinking are often imagining how effective they would be using the gun for defensive or offensive purposes.

[heybruce]

5 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

. 

Cutting your grass does not require a power mower, and using a push-mower is better for your health and better for your grass, but even though 800 kids a year are run over by them, some of those kids killed and 600 ending up maimed people still love those power mowers. The only difference is that BOTH sides of the aisle like power mowers. 

 

Incidentally, we had a homemade flamethrower for burning weeds along the fence and whatnot. That thing was pretty bad-as$ 

 

But comparing using a military grade flamethrower for burning weeds with an AR-15 for plinking is apples and oranges. Firing an AR-15 is no more difficult or dangerous than firing any semi-automatic rife.

 

You have handled guns, and you are familiar with  the .22-250, yes?  Been around at least 80 years. Is there anything you can kill with an AR-15 you can't kill with a .22-250?

Lawn mowers are not designed to kill people, and I've never heard of one intentionally used for that purpose.

 

I'm not familiar with the .22-250, but if it has the key characteristics of an assault rifle then it is an assault rifle.

[Surelynot]

2 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

In the USA thousands of people enjoy Silhouette shooting , trap shooting, skeet shooting, sporting clays, not to mention hunting bear, deer, rabbits, squirrels, ducks, geese etc.  There are approximately 11.5 million people who hunt in the usa. Then of course there are the farmers and ranchers that use guns to rid themselves of pests like coyotes.  

He's right......you just can't beat the thrill of shooting little plastic disks and the mass murder of little furry animals.......it must be a real hoot.....what have I been missing out on???

[Thomas J]

10 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

He's right......you just can't beat the thrill of shooting little plastic disks and the mass murder of little furry animals.......it must be a real hoot.....what have I been missing out on???

Again, you are showing your prejudice.  I may not enjoy bridge but many people do.  I may not enjoy bowling but many people do. The same is true for archery, tennis, golf, mountain climbing, etc etc etc.

While you may not see the benefit to hunting the fact is that without hunting, overpopulation of some species would occur and the animals starve to death instead of being harvested by shooting.  Now which is the more cruel death.  Also, many species would not exist today if it were not for the money that hunters pour into habitat and replenishment.  In Africa locals would kill off all game animals particularly elephants that they find a nuisance.  They don't because hunters pay them to hunt the animals giving the animals worth.  

Personally, I was a trap and skeet shooter.  Clay targets thrown through the air. This is a photo the the American Amateur Trapshooting grounds in Vandalia, Ohio.  Notice the number of fields used to host the event stretches for over 1 mile and thousands attend. 

[Yellowtail]

8 hours ago, heybruce said:

Why are gun homicide rates higher among men than women?  Why are gun homicide rates higher among poor people than rich people?  Why are gun homicide rates higher in the US than Canada?  We could debate causes endlessly, just as we could debate the cause for gun homicide rates being higher in urban areas than rural areas. 

 

However the fact remains that these correlations exist, and comparisons that ignore them are invalid.

 

What is it that I am ignoring? 

 

Without understanding the cause, you are only treating symptoms, not the disease. Yes, the law you are proposing will make a lot of people on one the aisle feel better about themselves, but they will do little to reduce the number of gun deaths in the US.

[Surelynot]

5 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

Again, you are showing your prejudice

You mean...... point of view?

[Surelynot]

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

but they will do little to reduce the number of gun deaths in the US.

Correct....the only solution is no guns.

[Thomas J]

10 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

You mean...... point of view?

No prejudice.  That is a bias without good reason.  You don't like guns so your are prejudiced against any activity involving them. 

PS are you also biased against the people who saved their lives by having a gun. But then again, you don't like guns and see they are only used by criminals to kill people. 

Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/03/20/any-study-of-gun-violence-should-include-how-guns-save-lives/?sh=2ed1eb465edc

Edited March 28, 2021 by Thomas J

[Yellowtail]

8 hours ago, heybruce said:

Once again, the black market for guns in the US is not large because it doesn't have to be.  Also, most crimes are not committed by clever masterminds who plan in advance, they are committed by idiots who don't consider the consequences of their actions.

 

Drugs are a lot easier to smuggle and keep hidden than guns.  You can't stick a handgun in a condom and  shove it up your rectum.

 

Most crimes are not committed with assault riles either. In fact, only a very small percentage are. 

 

Tons of illegal drugs are sized coming across the boarder into the US every year, and you're arguing this is done by people sneaking them across the boarder using condoms inserted into their anus, really?

 

 

[Surelynot]

3 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

No prejudice.  That is a bias without good reason.  You don't like guns so your are prejudiced against any activity involving them. 

PS are you also biased against the people who saved their lives by having a gun. But then again, you don't like guns and see they are only used by criminals to kill people. 

Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million, in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/03/20/any-study-of-gun-violence-should-include-how-guns-save-lives/?sh=2ed1eb465edc

....and yet where would any sane person prefer to live......a society steeped in gun culture, gun violence, gun deaths, accidental shootings, mass killings or.............. a safe, orderly society without guns.....???? Tricky one.

[Thomas J]

8 hours ago, heybruce said:

Depriving those intent on doing harm of tools designed with the purpose of killing from a distance will limit the ability of these people to do harm.

The overwhelming homicide from firearms occurs with a handgun.  There are more homicides from knives, hammers, and fists than rifles. 

Additionally very few of the mass shooters did so from a distance.  They walked into a crowd up close and started shooting.  As a person familiar with firearms, they would have killed more people had they used a shotgun with buckshot.  So banning rifles of any sort may only push those bent on killing others to even more deadly weapons. 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/

[Yellowtail]

8 hours ago, heybruce said:

I've used knives many times to slice tomatoes, and not once to kill someone.

 

I've never sliced a tomato with a gun.

 

The only 'essential' function of a gun is killing.  Plinking and target shooting are exercises to refine the killing ability of the shooter.  There is a reason why many paper targets used at gun ranges are silhouettes of the upper body of a man.  People doing the plinking are often imagining how effective they would be using the gun for defensive or offensive purposes.

 

I've used many guns and never used one to kill anyone,

 

SO now you're arguing that people plinking and target shooting are actually imagining they are shooting at other people, perhaps that black guy at work that got the promotion I (a white) should have gotten, or those gays standing outside that bar that used to be a nice family place. Or what about those stupid Christians outside that Family Planning Center. Those kinds of thoughts?

 

This is almost as funny as the smuggling in the anus thing, not quite, but almost. I don't doubt there is some of that, just like I don't doubt there are people that smuggle drugs in their anus, I just do not believe the numbers are significant. In fact, I would support illegalizing drug smuggling in your anus if it were the primary method of smuggling, then by your logic, all we would have to do is ban condoms and drug smuggling would stop, yes?

[Yellowtail]

22 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

....and yet where would any sane person prefer to live......a society steeped in gun culture, gun violence, gun deaths, accidental shootings, mass killings or.............. a safe, orderly society without guns.....???? Tricky one.

 

Seems to be a lot of otherwise sane people trying to get in, and not many trying to get out. 

 

I'm from CA, What sate are you from?

[Thomas J]

Just now, Surelynot said:

.and yet where would any sane person prefer to live......a society steeped in gun culture, gun violence, gun deaths, accidental shootings, mass killings or.............. a safe, orderly society without guns.....???? Tricky one.

If I was in government and truly wanted to as is stated "save lives" I would focus on those actions that are causing the most death.  Right now drug overdose kills 70,000 people a year and the vast majority of the illegal drugs come across the Mexican border.  But those same people who want to ban guns, with the next breath don't want to stop the flow of illegals which creates a network for the distribution of drugs, and while they want extensive background checks for U.S citizens to buy a gun, they prohibit any background check of those entering the USA illegally.  It is estimated that 42% of all FIREARM HOMICIDES are tied to drug gangs killing each other.  Ergo if you stopped illegal drugs, you would also be stopping firearm deaths. 

Mexico has only 1 gun store and it takes months of background checks in order to obtain one.  So if "gun control" was effective Mexico would have few deaths.  Wrong.  It is one of the highest in the world.  The criminals have guns, the public does not. 

There were 211 people killed in Mass Murders in 2019.  A disproportionate amount of mass murderers are Muslim,  Major Nadal - Ft. Hood, Omar Mateen - Orlando, Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik,- San Bernardino, i - Ahmad Al Aliwi - Boulder Colorado. 

But I see no demand to place "more intensive" scrutiny on those entering the country.  Or more intensive scrutiny on those who show indication of anti-american sentiment.  No  ban the gun, don't try to control the shooter. 
 

[Surelynot]

Just now, Yellowtail said:

 

Seems to be a lot of otherwise sane people trying to get in

Which tells you a lot about their lives....very sad.

 

What state am I from?....Utopia.....just near Nana (not Narnia)