Shooting erupts at Colorado supermarket, bloodied man shown in handcuffs

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, Thomas J said:

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/

"They walked into a crowd up close and started shooting. "

 

How up close were they?  Close enough for someone to slap the gun out of their hand?  That is how close you have to be to kill with a knife.

 

I have not argued that all guns should be banned.  I have argued that gun ownership should be better regulated, and that assault rifles are uniquely unnecessary for civilian use.  Ok?

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

 

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?

See the above post about what guns are designed for, and what knives are designed for.  And stop diverting.

[stevenl]

20 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. 

Why do you reply to my comment with something I didn't claim. I said guns were made to kill, you changed that into guns are made to kill people. So you have no argument to my original comment. An original comment that wasn't even directed at you.

[heybruce]

3 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

 

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.

Wow, you went off the deep end there.

 

Assault rifles, and the .223/5.56mm ammunition commonly used, are designed for combat use; to kill or disable people.

 

Guns in general are designed to kill animals, including people.

 

I am not opposed to legitimate hunting weapons or legitimate self-defense weapons.  I'm the one who posted that if you feel you need for a close quarter slaughter weapon for home defense you should use a shotgun instead of an assault rifle. 

 

I am opposed to letting any idiot who has managed to avoid criminal conviction or a documented record of mental instability to legally own a gun without any training or demonstration of being able to safely use, maintain, or store the weapon.  And I am against putting combat weapons, even those marginally modified, in civilian hands.

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, Thomas J said:

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.

I answered that earlier, and modified my answer to appease Yellowtail who seems to think plinking and varmint hunting are essential activities that can only be accomplished with assault rifles.  My reply was something like:

 

An assault rifle is a high capacity weapon firing a cartridge designed for combat use with no significant civilian use.

 

To accommodate Yellowtail I then added "no significant civilian use other than trivial ones that can be accomplished with other standard weapons."

[Sujo]

The sun must be up in a few places in the US by now. Any mass murders yet?

 

Maybe they got sidetracked by using their guns for their other uses like hitting in a nail, stirring the soup, cutting the steak, maybe even riding it to work.

[Phulublub]

On 3/28/2021 at 1:33 PM, Thomas J said:

 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. 

 

Replace "semi-auto rifles" with semi-auto guns...

 

Why do you bring the banning of automatic weapons into the thread?  I did not mention them - so why are you trying to rebut my point by talking about them?

 

When was the last mass shooting in the UK?  Using any gun, of any sort?  How many have there been in thre US this year?

 

PH

Edited March 30, 2021 by onthedarkside
personal comments removed

[Phulublub]

3 hours ago, Thomas J said:

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.  

Yes, let's go closer to (your) home.

 

How many of Mexico's gun deaths are directly related to the production and transportation of drugs?  And where do the vast majority of those drugs go?

 

Perhaps the Swiss have so few gun homicides because they are grown up enough to be responsible.  Maybe the US will get there eventually.

 

PH

[pacovl46]

22 hours ago, Thomas J said:

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. 

I hate to break this to you, but you really don’t know what you’re talking about! Death penalty does not deter crimes that’s a fact, otherwise you wouldn’t have any capital crimes in countries that do have the death penalty. Secondly, of course you would want prisoners to be rehabilitated because if you could pull that off, you’d have a much more peaceful prison, plus the ones that will get out at some point could be much easier integrated back into society than if they were not. It’s a really complex subject matter. My suggestions to you is to read up on it. It’s quite an interesting subject matter. 
 

P.S. In regards to swift action and execution as a deterrent, take China. You go to court, if found guilty they take you out back and shoot you in the back of the head, no appeals, no nothing, and still there’s people who kill or deal drugs. 

Edited March 28, 2021 by pacovl46

[pacovl46]

20 hours 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?

I‘m not American, so, I do not have a gun permit. Obviously if I was living there and I had one registered in my name I’d have to give it up because they knew I have it, but I would probably get one on the black market afterwards. 
 

I live in Germany and the only way to get a permit to legally own a gun as a regular citizen is to join a gun club. You’ll have to do a psychological evaluation before they issue the permit if you want anything beyond .22 and the permit merely allows you to own the gun and to transport it directly from your place to the club house and back. You’re not allowed to stop on the way to go do some shopping for example and you’re not allowed to carry the gun in public. While you transport the gun it has to be in a lockable container, by lockable I mean it has to be locked in a case that has a key or a numeric lock either built in or the case must be lockable with an external padlock, the gun must be transported out of reach, I.e. in the trunk of the car separated from the ammo. In your house the gun has to be kept in a gun safe, what I don’t know is if that has to be the case while you’re at home or if that’s only while you’re not. My guess is, even if they were to ban guns in the US, you’d still be allowed to go sport shooting, like you are in Germany. Therefore I wouldn’t have to give up my gun and to be honest, I don’t think they’ll do away with the right to bear arms in the US ever. 

[Sujo]

4 minutes ago, pacovl46 said:

I‘m not American, so, I do not have a gun permit. Obviously if I was living there and I had one registered in my name I’d have to give it up because they knew I have it, but I would probably get one on the black market afterwards. 
 

I live in Germany and the only way to get a permit to legally own a gun as a regular citizen is to join a gun club. You’ll have to do a psychological evaluation before they issue the permit if you want anything beyond .22 and the permit merely allows you to own the gun and to transport it directly from your place to the club house and back. You’re not allowed to stop on the way to go do some shopping for example and you’re not allowed to carry the gun in public. While you transport the gun it has to be in a lockable container, by lockable I mean it has to be locked in a case that has a key or a numeric lock either built in or the case must be lockable with an external padlock, the gun must be transported out of reach, I.e. in the trunk of the car separated from the ammo. In your house the gun has to be kept in a gun safe, what I don’t know is if that has to be the case while you’re at home or if that’s only while you’re not. My guess is, even if they were to ban guns in the US, you’d still be allowed to go sport shooting, like you are in Germany. Therefore I wouldn’t have to give up my gun and to be honest, I don’t think they’ll do away with the right to bear arms in the US ever. 

Pretty much the same in australia. I had a promotion day for sport, i mean oz institute of sport, day at a firing range.

 

I had never seen or touched a gun. We did clay shooting, .22 target and hand gun target.

 

How anyone can hit anything they aim at with a handgun is beyond me.

 

Was a good day, at the end all guns locked and ammo taken to another place. The gun owners mostly prefered to leave them all there, those that took them home had a ritual of how to transport them without easy access to use them. 

 

Very strict in oz, but after the port arthur killings people saw they didnt want to be like the US gun culture.

 

For that, i am eternally grateful.

 

 

[Yellowtail]

2 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

Highly disingenuous or totally out of depth. 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. 

 

Two year years with a Democrat President, House & Senate and nothing. And then after Sandy Hook with an election to worry about they got busy, but did virtually nothing. 

 

[Yellowtail]

2 hours ago, simple1 said:

 

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

 

Thank you, great links.

 

 I am glad this is moving through congress, I had seen that it was not. 

 

 

[pacovl46]

15 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.

You don’t really think that the thens of thousands, probably hundreds of thousands of tons of drugs all enter the country via a rectum, do you?! The black market in the US is a lot larger than you think! 
 

Also, it’s not about which is easier to hide when it comes to black markets, it’s about demand and what’s legal to obtain and what isn’t! As soon as you prohibit something that is in demand you automatically create a black market for it as long as the sale of that item is profitable! 

Edited March 28, 2021 by pacovl46

[pacovl46]

15 hours ago, heybruce said:

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.

Well, I’m sure they can be swayed to compromise once it really gets to the level where banning private guns is seriously considered! While I don’t think they’ll ever ban guns completely I do believe that it will eventually get to the point where they will have to compromise.

[pacovl46]

13 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Pretty much the same in australia. I had a promotion day for sport, i mean oz institute of sport, day at a firing range.

 

I had never seen or touched a gun. We did clay shooting, .22 target and hand gun target.

 

How anyone can hit anything they aim at with a handgun is beyond me.

 

Was a good day, at the end all guns locked and ammo taken to another place. The gun owners mostly prefered to leave them all there, those that took them home had a ritual of how to transport them without easy access to use them. 

 

Very strict in oz, but after the port arthur killings people saw they didnt want to be like the US gun culture.

 

For that, i am eternally grateful.

 

 

 

It all just comes down to practice! ???? The more you shoot the better you get! 

[Yellowtail]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

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.

 

Are arsonists deprived of matches and flammables? I think most anyone can buy matches and gasoline, yes?

 

This is just more of your defection, we are not talking about arson, we are talking about mass shootings.

[Eric Loh]

12 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

Two year years with a Democrat President, House & Senate and nothing. And then after Sandy Hook with an election to worry about they got busy, but did virtually nothing. 

 

Lost the argument and decided to hitch your argument on a theory. Some would think you trying to spin a conspiracy theory that Sandy Hook was staged so that Obama can launched his crusade for guns reforms and tasked Biden to head the team to better the election chances. I think you better than that, right?

[Sujo]

2 minutes ago, pacovl46 said:

 

It all just comes down to practice! ???? The more you shoot the better you get! 

That certainly does not interest me. Im ok with doing that as a one off but no way would i want it as a habit.

 

Never will i keep a gun at home, i couldnt fathom someone getting it and killing someone.

 

Nope, not for this little duck.

[Sujo]

4 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

Are arsonists deprived of matches and flammables? I think most anyone can buy matches and gasoline, yes?

 

This is just more of your defection, we are not talking about arson, we are talking about mass shootings.

Says the poster who has deflected all over the place.

[robblok]

4 hours ago, jvs said:

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.

I am Dutch like you I don't want American situations in my country. However for the US like you said there are no easy answers. To remove a lot of guns is going to be really hard. Also like you said criminals are usually killing criminals. Its not as if criminals go after normal people all the time with guns. So the I need a gun to protect me from criminals is not really a good argument.

 

But no easy answers at all, it would need a mentality change. The US already has really tough laws and still a lot of crime. So tough laws are already in place. I think its cultural a large portion over there is a bit "crazy". Macho culture and love of guns.

 

Not all of course otherwise there would not be so many against guns.

[pacovl46]

Just now, Sujo said:

That certainly does not interest me. Im ok with doing that as a one off but no way would i want it as a habit.

 

Never will i keep a gun at home, i couldnt fathom someone getting it and killing someone.

 

Nope, not for this little duck.

That’s what gun safes are for, also you could keep it at your gun club, but I get it, shooting isn’t for everyone and that’s perfectly alright! ???? 

[robblok]

5 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

Are arsonists deprived of matches and flammables? I think most anyone can buy matches and gasoline, yes?

 

This is just more of your defection, we are not talking about arson, we are talking about mass shootings.

Yes but matches and gasoline are things that are needed. While guns except for hunting are not. Also you don't need semi automatic weapons for hunting. So to compare something that has multiple uses with guns that  have one use to kill is a bit different. Because what are guns for, to kill be it humans or animals. 

[Sujo]

Just now, robblok said:

I am Dutch like you I don't want American situations in my country. However for the US like you said there are no easy answers. To remove a lot of guns is going to be really hard. Also like you said criminals are usually killing criminals. Its not as if criminals go after normal people all the time with guns. So the I need a gun to protect me from criminals is not really a good argument.

 

But no easy answers at all, it would need a mentality change. The US already has really tough laws and still a lot of crime. So tough laws are already in place. I think its cultural a large portion over there is a bit "crazy". Macho culture and love of guns.

 

Not all of course otherwise there would not be so many against guns.

The mentality change is pretty much there. I think its over 70% want something done.

 

Its just the repub politicians that are, well, mental.

[Yellowtail]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

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.

 

While I agree smuggling guns into the US makes little sense, you were claiming that guns would be more difficult to smuggle than drugs, and used drugs in the anus as a reason which is ridiculous. There is no current demand for guns to be smuggled over the boarder, but if it became difficult to obtain guns in the US, the demand would rise and the market would respond. 

 

Yes, you keep saying the same thing over and over, yet you have not shown how an AR-15 is uniquely more dangerous than any decent firearm. It is not.  

[Sujo]

4 minutes ago, robblok said:

Yes but matches and gasoline are things that are needed. While guns except for hunting are not. Also you don't need semi automatic weapons for hunting. So to compare something that has multiple uses with guns that  have one use to kill is a bit different. Because what are guns for, to kill be it humans or animals. 

I have never understood why they call them hunters. They are not, they are killers.

 

Its like using dynamite to blast the water to kill fish. Thats not fishing.

 

Using guns to hunt is not a sport. To keep animal populations down then let authorities do it.

Edited March 28, 2021 by Sujo

[robblok]

1 minute ago, Sujo said:

I have never understood why they call them hunters. They are not, they are killers.

 

Its like using dynamite to blast the water to kill fish. Thats not fishing.

 

Using guns to hunt is not a sport. To keep animal populations down then let authorities do it.

To be honest i looked at a lot of documentaries, mountain men, live below zero and a reality show about park rangers it shows me that hunting is not easy. I would not call them killers more often then not they don't shoot anything. Its not what I like to do but there is skill involved and effort and a lot of rules.

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

Yes but matches and gasoline are things that are needed. While guns except for hunting are not. Also you don't need semi automatic weapons for hunting. So to compare something that has multiple uses with guns that  have one use to kill is a bit different. Because what are guns for, to kill be it humans or animals. 

 

Guns have many uses besides killing. Many people enjoy them. They enjoy shooting, hunting and collecting. They like to disassemble and assemble they. There are gun clubs, there are gun competitions, whole families go shooting together. 

 

I think something over a million people own guns in the US. People aren't buying them to kill people. 

[Yellowtail]

1 hour ago, Sujo said:

I have never understood why they call them hunters. They are not, they are killers.

 

Its like using dynamite to blast the water to kill fish. Thats not fishing.

 

Using guns to hunt is not a sport. To keep animal populations down then let authorities do it.

 

So as always, the solution is bigger government.

[Jingthing]

14 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

So as always, the solution is bigger government.

Sometimes it is and sometimes it isn't.