Shooting erupts at Colorado supermarket, bloodied man shown in handcuffs

[Surelynot]

2 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

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. 
 

One word.....Japan

[Jingthing]

2 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

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. 
 

Oh please.

Lets keep on the topic here instead of wild right wing off topic deflection.

No mainstream politician is saying ban all guns.

No mainstream politician is saying abolish the second amenment.

So just stop with the hyperbolic lying already.

It's about sensible gun control measures such as universal background checks, restrictions on automatic weapons, etc.

Such measures are massively popular with the general public.

But who stops it? You guessed it. The NRA and a minority of very loud mostly republican gun nuts that believe sensible gun control is a slippery slope to banning all guns. It is not. 

[Surelynot]

Just now, Jingthing said:

Lets keep on the topic here

Ha....glad you have also noticed...over and over again.....the "not as bad as Hitler" defense .

[Yellowtail]

9 hours ago, heybruce said:

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.

 

Only a tiny fraction of (if any)guns are designed to kill people, to imply the are is a lie. The vast majority if not all guns are designed to sell to hunters, recreational shooters,  law enforcement and the military. 

 

The .22-250 was designed 80 years ago as a varminter, yet you would apparently call it an assault riffle.

[Thomas J]

On 3/28/2021 at 12:18 PM, Jingthing said:

sensible gun control i

Ok Jingthing.  first off the why that is relative is that supposedly banning guns is to stop death.  So why the emphasis on the 211 people killed in mass shootings and not on the 70,000 killed from drug overdoses?  It is not based on what would save the most lives but rather a personal distate for guns. 

Secondly, you and every other "gun control" advocate always uses the abstract term "gun control" in your case "sensible gun control"  Now tell me, you are now in a position to make whatever law in the USA you want.  

Here is the list of the 10 worst mass shootings in the USA.  Tell me what law(s) you would have passed that would have prevented any of these people from obtaining a gun and unleashing that carnage.  It is easy to spout terms like "reasonable" "sensible" "effective" but laws just for the sake of laws is nothing but a catch all phrase used to create the illusion that it will actually do something.  Right now we have a law for a background check.  112,090 people were prohibited from buying a gun because they were a felon.  What was their punishment 12 people were prosecuted for violating the law.  So how about more extensive background checks etc. Will we then double that number to 24?  Laws that do nothing or those that aren't enforced are meaningless. 

I will anxiously await your "sensible gun law" and how it prevented any of these killings. 

 

https://www.axios.com/deadliest-mass-shootings-in-modern-us-history-3b2dfb67-7278-4082-a78c-d9fdbef367f1.html

 

Edited March 30, 2021 by onthedarkside
quoted content removed for fair use violation

[Thomas J]

17 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

So just stop with the hyperbolic lying already.

It's about sensible gun control measures such as universal background checks, restrictions on automatic weapons, etc.

Automatic weapons are already banned.  Only police and military can own them.  We already have background checks.  See the result.  So you want more background checks that the ATF and other law enforcements agencies don't even bother to check up on or prosecute? 

Lets try a novel approach.  Enforce the gun laws already on the books.  

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

Edited March 28, 2021 by Thomas J

[Jingthing]

On 3/28/2021 at 12:30 PM, Thomas J said:

Ok Jingthing.  first off the why that is relative is that supposedly banning guns is to stop death.  So why the emphasis on the 211 people killed in mass shootings and not on the 70,000 killed from drug overdoses?  It is not based on what would save the most lives but rather a personal distate for guns. 

Secondly, you and every other "gun control" advocate always uses the abstract term "gun control" in your case "sensible gun control"  Now tell me, you are now in a position to make whatever law in the USA you want.  

Here is the list of the 10 worst mass shootings in the USA.  Tell me what law(s) you would have passed that would have prevented any of these people from obtaining a gun and unleashing that carnage.  It is easy to spout terms like "reasonable" "sensible" "effective" but laws just for the sake of laws is nothing but a catch all phrase used to create the illusion that it will actually do something.  Right now we have a law for a background check.  112,090 people were prohibited from buying a gun because they were a felon.  What was their punishment 12 people were prosecuted for violating the law.  So how about more extensive background checks etc. Will we then double that number to 24?  Laws that do nothing or those that aren't enforced are meaningless. 

I will anxiously await your "sensible gun law" and how it prevented any of these killings. 

 

 

I'm not getting baited into your game. Nobody is suggesting that gun control, which is fully constitutional according to the supreme court, is going to prevent ALL gun deaths. 

[Yellowtail]

9 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Oh please.

Lets keep on the topic here instead of wild right wing off topic deflection.

No mainstream politician is saying ban all guns.

No mainstream politician is saying abolish the second amenment.

So just stop with the hyperbolic lying already.

It's about sensible gun control measures such as universal background checks, restrictions on automatic weapons, etc.

Such measures are massively popular with the general public.

But who stops it? You guessed it. The NRA and a minority of very loud mostly republican gun nuts that believe sensible gun control is a slippery slope to basnning all guns. It is not. 

 

Oh please.

 

With politicians the key word is "saying". Yes, they never actually say it. Most of the people posing in this thread are calling for bans.

 

We already have universal background checks and restrictions on automatic weapons, so just stop with the hyperbolic lying.

 

It is because they are popular with the public that we have them.

 

That the NRA stops it is ridiculous.

 

Why is President Biden talking about an end run around congress if it is so popular?

 

 

 

[Thomas J]

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

'm not getting baited into your game. Nobody is suggesting that gun control, which is fully constitutional according to the supreme court, is going to prevent ALL gun deaths. 

I am not saying all.  Tell me one that would have prevented ANY OF THE MASS SHOOTINGS. 

[Jingthing]

Just now, Yellowtail said:

 

Oh please.

 

With politicians the key word is "saying". Yes, they never actually say it. Most of the people posing in this thread are calling for bans.

 

We already have universal background checks and restrictions on automatic weapons, so just stop with the hyperbolic lying.

 

It is because they are popular with the public that we have them.

 

That the NRA stops it is ridiculous.

 

Why is President Biden talking about an end run around congress if it is so popular?

 

 

 

That was one of the most dishonest posts I've ever read. Why would I even dignify that with any reply? 

[Yellowtail]

2 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I'm not getting baited into your game. Nobody is suggesting that gun control, which is fully constitutional according to the supreme court, is going to prevent ALL gun deaths. 

 

You're calling for sensible, or what is not "common sense" gun control, yet when ask to provide an example of one you claim you are being baited. 

 

The truths is, virtually every substantive argument presented to you goes unchallenged.

 

 

[Thomas J]

9 hours ago, heybruce said:

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.

Tell me the "key characteristics" of an assault rifle.  How does the AR-15 function differently or have as you put it "key characteristics "than the Remington 742 or the Browning BAR .308

The truth is the AR-15 is just  cosmetically scary.  It is one of the least powerful rifles. 

 

[Phulublub]

9 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

Even then other countries that have made it virtually impossible for private citizens to own guns find the criminals still have them.  Mexico being the closest example. 

How does the gun crime committed by criminals  compare between gun-owning countries and non gun-owning countries?  Is there a significant difference between, say, the US and the UK?  Both countries have criminals with guns.  Only one has gun ownership to any significant degree in the general population.

 

PH

[Surelynot]

23 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

Surely murder is a serious subject, which ought to be examined seriously. Instead, it is almost always examined politically in the context of gun control controversies, with stock arguments on both sides that have remained the same for decades. And most of those arguments are irrelevant to the central question: Do tighter gun control laws reduce the murder rate?
 

That is not an esoteric question, nor one for which no empirical evidence is available. Think about it. We have 50 states, each with its own gun control laws, and many of those laws have gotten either tighter or looser over the years. There must be tons of data that could indicate whether murder rates went up or down when either of these things happened.
 

But have you ever heard any gun control advocate cite any such data? Tragically, gun control has become one of those fact-free issues that spawn outbursts of emotional rhetoric and mutual recriminations about the National Rifle Association or the Second Amendment.
 

If restrictions on gun ownership do reduce murders, we can repeal the Second Amendment, as other Constitutional Amendments have been repealed. Laws exist to protect people. People do not exist to perpetuate laws.

But if tighter restrictions on gun ownership do not reduce murders, what is the point of tighter gun control laws — and what is the point of demonizing the National Rifle Association?
 

There are data not only from our 50 states but also from other countries around the world. Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm’s empirical study, “Guns and Violence: The English Experience,” should be eye-opening for all those who want their eyes opened, however small that number of people might be.
 

Professor Malcolm’s book also illustrates the difference between isolated, cherry-picked facts and relevant empirical evidence.

Many gun control advocates have cited the much higher murder rates in the United States than in England as due to tighter gun control laws in England. But Professor Malcolm’s study points out that the murder rate in New York has been some multiple of the murder rate in London for two centuries — and, during most of that time, neither city had serious restrictions on gun ownership.
 

As late as 1954, “there were no controls on shotguns” in England, Professor Malcolm reported, but only 12 cases of armed robbery in London. Of these only 4 had real guns. But in the remainder of the 20th century, gun control laws became ever more severe — and armed robberies in London soared to 1,400 by 1974.

 

“As the numbers of legal firearms have dwindled, the numbers of armed crimes have risen” is her summary of that history in England. Conversely, in the United States the number of handguns in American homes more than doubled between 1973 and 1992, while the murder rate went down.

 

There are relevant facts available, but you are not likely to hear about them from politicians currently pushing for tighter gun control laws, or from the mainstream media, when those facts go against the claims of gun control advocates.
 

Despite hundreds of thousands of times a year when Americans use firearms defensively, none of those incidents is likely to be reported in the mainstream media, even when lives are saved as a result. But one accidental firearm death in a home will be broadcast and rebroadcast from coast to coast.
 

Virtually all empirical studies in the United States show that tightening gun control laws has not reduced crime rates in general or murder rates in particular. Is this because only people opposed to gun control do empirical studies? Or is it because the facts uncovered in empirical studies make the arguments of gun control zealots untenable?
 

In both England and the United States, those people most zealous for tighter gun control laws tend also to be most lenient toward criminals and most restrictive on police. The net result is that law-abiding citizens become more vulnerable when they are disarmed and criminals disobey gun control laws, as they disobey other laws.
 

The facts are too plain to be ignored. Moreover, the consequences are too dangerous to law-abiding citizens, whose lives are put in jeopardy on the basis of fact-free assumptions and unexamined dogmas. Such arguments are a farce, but not the least bit funny.
 

Thomas Sowell is a Professor of Economics and senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305

https://www.lanereport.com/64506/2016/06/opinion-thomas-sowell-the-gun-control-arce/

Hogwash....USA, lots of people die due to guns......Japan, hardly anyone.

 

No guns......no deaths due to guns.

Edited March 28, 2021 by Surelynot

[Thomas J]

On 3/28/2021 at 1:23 PM, Phulublub said:

"No control on shotguns" is hardly the same as "no control on semi-auto rifles". Additionally, shotguns have useful and legitimate uses in civilian life.  I cannot think of any such for semi-auto rifles.

 

There are various categories of guns.  1. single shot 2. bolt action 3. lever action, 4. pump 5. semi-automatic. 6. automatic.  

Automatic firearms are banned in the USA.  Only law enforcement and the military may own them.  Only special Federal Firearms Licensed dealers can obtain them and they deal with selling them to the various law enforcement agencies in the USA.  Semi-Automatic rifles are one shot for each time you pull the trigger.  They are amongst the most popular rifles for hunting. 

Now as for banning Rifles.  Rifles were used in only 364 homicides in the USA It is not identified how many of those rifles were semi-automatic. By contrast knives were used in 1,476 deaths. So if the INTENT is to stop death it would be more effective to ban knives than rifles. 

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

 

[Yellowtail]

8 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

Hogwash....USA, lots of people die due to guns......Japan, hardly anyone.

 

No guns......no deaths due to guns.

 

The US also has a lot of people are stabbed to death, while in Japan hardly anyone is stabbed to death. If you compare the knife murder rate in the US to the TOTAL murder rate in Japan, the US would still be is significantly higher. 

 

Hogwash indeed. 

[Thomas J]

17 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

Hogwash....USA, lots of people die due to guns......Japan, hardly anyone.

 

No guns......no deaths due to guns.

Now you are comparing apples to oranges.  The Swiss have lots of guns but very few homicides. 

Lets go closer to home and compare other countries rather than Japan how about Mexico.  There is only 1 gun store, it takes months to get approval to buy a firearm.  Mexico's homicide rate is 5 times the USA.  So gun ownership rates have correlations but not causations. If guns caused problems the Swiss would have severe problems.  If strict gun laws prevented gun homicides, Mexico would have a low homicide rate.  

Sticking just to the USA.  Take Kennesaw Georgia,  It is a suburb of Atlanta .  IT HAS A LAW SAYING EACH AND EVERY CITIZEN MUST OWN A GUN.  How has that worked out compared to its larger neighbor Atlanta. 

If the percentage of guns in your mind automatically leads to more deaths Kennesaw should be off the charts. 

https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/us/ga/kennesaw/crime-rate-statistics#:~:text=Violent crimes are defined in,a 9.25% increase from 2016.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/mexicos-soaring-murder-rate-proves-gun-control-is-deadly-11571696723

Edited March 28, 2021 by Thomas J

[jvs]

46 minutes ago, Phulublub said:

How does the gun crime committed by criminals  compare between gun-owning countries and non gun-owning countries?  Is there a significant difference between, say, the US and the UK?  Both countries have criminals with guns.  Only one has gun ownership to any significant degree in the general population.

 

PH

In many countries criminals have guns,fact.

Not many criminals decide to commit mass murder by starting a shootout in a school or shopping mall.

Criminals shoot each other,fact

No easy answers.

[Surelynot]

2 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

Now you are comparing apples to oranges.  The Swiss have lots of guns but very few homicides.

No....my comment stands irrespective of anything you might claim.....no guns.....no deaths due to guns.

[Eric Loh]

13 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

I am guessing you do not know much about firearms.  There are various categories of guns.  1. single shot 2. bolt action 3. lever action, 4. pump 5. semi-automatic. 6. automatic.  

Automatic firearms are banned in the USA.  Only law enforcement and the military may own them.  Only special Federal Firearms Licensed dealers can obtain them and they deal with selling them to the various law enforcement agencies in the USA.  Semi-Automatic rifles are one shot for each time you pull the trigger.  They are amongst the most popular rifles for hunting. 

Now as for banning Rifles.  Rifles were used in only 364 homicides in the USA It is not identified how many of those rifles were semi-automatic. By contrast knives were used in 1,476 deaths. So if the INTENT is to stop death it would be more effective to ban knives than rifles. 

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

 

I will leave the idiosyncratic love for firearms to the minority in US and expect mass shootings to continue. I feel sorry for the majority who see the current status quo as ineffective to protect their lives. 
 

A question to your post, didn’t the ban on automatic guns (rapid fire) became defunct in September 2004 per a 10 years sunset provision. Isn’t this reinstatement of the ban part of Biden’s gun reform push. 

 

[Surelynot]

2 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

will leave the idiosyncratic love for firearms

Porn...out and out gun porn

[Surelynot]

1 hour ago, Thomas J said:

Everyone including law abiding gun owners crave a way for firearms not to be misused, but so far no one other than "outright confiscation" of every gun does nothing but create the façade of doing something

Nailed it......and the solution is?............ no guns

[Yellowtail]

9 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

No....my comment stands irrespective of anything you might claim.....no guns.....no deaths due to guns.

 

I think you might be confused, I know there are a lot of new ideas to try and take in, but he was not responding to the portion of your comment where you said: "...no guns...no deaths due to guns." We all get that, and I think we all agree. 

 

His response was to the portion of your comment where you said: "Hogwash....USA, lots of people die due to guns......Japan, hardly anyone."

 

Clear? I know it's easy to cherry-pick sentences to respond to, just like it's easy to cherry-pick data that supports your argument. I don't blame you for doing that, as you have no real way of formulating a substantive response when the data do not support your position.

 

But to be clear, I agree, and I think everyone agrees that if there were NO guns there would be NO deaths due to guns. 

 

What were are trying to discuss now,  and I understand it gets really complicated here, but what we are trying to discuss is how to minimize the number of gun deaths, assuming that all guns will not cease to exist.

[Yellowtail]

23 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

I will leave the idiosyncratic love for firearms to the minority in US and expect mass shootings to continue. I feel sorry for the majority who see the current status quo as ineffective to protect their lives. 
 

A question to your post, didn’t the ban on automatic guns (rapid fire) became defunct in September 2004 per a 10 years sunset provision. Isn’t this reinstatement of the ban part of Biden’s gun reform push. 

 

 

Do you have a link to President Biden's proposal? 

[Surelynot]

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

What were are trying to discuss now.......

....is how to stop all the whiney, whinging America, gun toting maniacs from spitting their dummies out because they want their guns at any cost, regardless of the consequences to society in general.

 

Got it!

[Yellowtail]

2 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

....is how to stop all the whiney, whinging America, gun toting maniacs from spitting their dummies out because they want their guns at any cost, regardless of the consequences to society in general.

 

Got it!

 

I understand completely. In fact, if I were stuck trying to support such a weak position without any data to support it, and I had such a limited capacity comprehend an argument and to formulate a substantive response, I might resort to deflection and name calling as well. 

[Eric Loh]

 Executive laws are not permanent. Biden preferred the Congress to enact the gun control laws. Should be a non partisan issue but it’s being held hostage by the gun activists GOPs in congress. Biden lead the task force after Sandy Hook and got concrete proposals on gun control but stalled in congress. All these information easily gleaned from public domain sites if you take the effort. 

 

 

Edited March 30, 2021 by onthedarkside
quote of hidden post removed

[simple1]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-congress-guns-idUSKBN2B32MA

 

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8

 

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1446

 

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/127

Edited March 30, 2021 by onthedarkside
quote of hidden post removed

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

 

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.

Why deprive arsonists of matches and flammables?  Without understanding the cause of their motives, we will only be denying them the right to cook food or burn their neighborhood.

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

 

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?

No, I am arguing that smuggling guns is much harder than smuggling drugs, and (you'd know this if you read the post you replied to) that there is no significant black market for guns in the US because there is no need for one.  Guns are easy to obtain legally, no questions asked, for cash.

 

I never posted that most crimes are committed using assault rifles, only that assault rifles are uniquely dangerous and unnecessary.  Please try to keep up.