Shooting erupts at Colorado supermarket, bloodied man shown in handcuffs

[heybruce]

9 hours ago, pacovl46 said:

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! 

Illegal drugs are hidden in rectums and many other places.  Guns are not so easy to hide.  Understand?

 

There is currently no significant black market for guns in the US because it is unnecessary; guns are easy to acquire legally.  There is no serious push to outlaw guns in the US, just attempts to restrict some of the most dangerous and unnecessary and make it a little harder for people who shouldn't own guns to get one.

 

If gun were outlawed in the US a black market would arise, but the cost of the guns would go up significantly.  That would also restrict the number of guns.

 

I don't know why you are so obsessed with a gun black market that has significant impact on the number of guns in the country.

 

 

[heybruce]

9 hours ago, pacovl46 said:

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.

People have been waiting for things to get to that point for decades.  Instead the NRA is pushing Republicans in the opposite direction; trying to legalize silencers and other deadly nonsense.

[heybruce]

9 hours 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.

I was using the idea as an example; I was not discussing the practical realities.

 

You were arguing that instead of restricting some guns, people should be identified who would commit crimes before the crimes were committed.  That is not practical, it is an absurd deflection from the topic.  Restricting some types of guns is practical and should be done.

[heybruce]

9 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

 

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.  

Yes, if guns were banned (which I'm not calling for) the market would respond:  Prices would go up significantly and demand for large difficult to conceal guns would go down.  That would eliminate a lot of guns, especially the most dangerous ones. 

 

Stop deflecting.  I have been arguing that assault rifles are uniquely unnecessary.  High capacity weapons are more dangerous for the obvious reason that the shooter can fire many more bullets before having to do a quick reload.  Do you deny that?

[Yellowtail]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

Illegal drugs are hidden in rectums and many other places.  Guns are not so easy to hide.  Understand?

 

There is currently no significant black market for guns in the US because it is unnecessary; guns are easy to acquire legally.  There is no serious push to outlaw guns in the US, just attempts to restrict some of the most dangerous and unnecessary and make it a little harder for people who shouldn't own guns to get one.

 

If gun were outlawed in the US a black market would arise, but the cost of the guns would go up significantly.  That would also restrict the number of guns.

 

I don't know why you are so obsessed with a gun black market that has significant impact on the number of guns in the country.

 

 

I think we all agree that it would be more difficult to hide an assault rifle in one's rectum than a few grams of dope.

 

I don't know why you are so obsessed with people hiding things things in their rectums. People smuggling firearms would likely uses some other means. 

[pacovl46]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

Illegal drugs are hidden in rectums and many other places.  Guns are not so easy to hide.  Understand?

 

There is currently no significant black market for guns in the US because it is unnecessary; guns are easy to acquire legally.  There is no serious push to outlaw guns in the US, just attempts to restrict some of the most dangerous and unnecessary and make it a little harder for people who shouldn't own guns to get one.

 

If gun were outlawed in the US a black market would arise, but the cost of the guns would go up significantly.  That would also restrict the number of guns.

 

I don't know why you are so obsessed with a gun black market that has significant impact on the number of guns in the country.

 

 

The cops confiscate on average about 700 tons of cocaine per year in the USA, which is maybe 10% of what is actually smuggled into the country, but even the 700 tons are way too much to be smuggled in rectums. Understand? Rectums and stomachs are small scale! The real shipments come by planes, ships, trucks, cars and submarines! Understand? 
 

According to the American Department of Justice 43% of all guns used in crimes are sourced on the black market! I quoted an entire article on that in my last reply to you prior to this one! Understand? 
 

Guns on the black market are already much more expensive than legally bought guns in a gun store or at a show. The article stated that as well! Obviously the crims understand that that comes with the territory. Understand? 
 

What I’m saying is, and this is also in the article, banning legal guns or making changes to the existing gun laws won’t reduce gun crimes. Read the fricking article! It’s a survey of the Department of Justice! 

[Yellowtail]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

I was using the idea as an example; I was not discussing the practical realities.

 

You were arguing that instead of restricting some guns, people should be identified who would commit crimes before the crimes were committed.  That is not practical, it is an absurd deflection from the topic.  Restricting some types of guns is practical and should be done.

 

Are not background checks not an attempt to to identify people that are likely to commit gun crimes? If not, what is the purpose of them? 

 

If background checks are not practical,  why have them?

 

And why is it deflection to discuss them? 

 

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

 

I think we all agree that it would be more difficult to hide an assault rifle in one's rectum than a few grams of dope.

 

I don't know why you are so obsessed with people hiding things things in their rectums. People smuggling firearms would likely uses some other means. 

I simply pointed out that it is much easier to conceal small quantities of drugs than guns.  You and others are the ones trying to turn the topic into one about rectums.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, pacovl46 said:

The cops confiscate on average about 700 tons of cocaine per year in the USA, which is maybe 10% of what is actually smuggled into the country, but even the 700 tons are way too much to be smuggled in rectums. Understand? Rectums and stomachs are small scale! The real shipments come by planes, ships, trucks, cars and submarines! Understand? 
 

According to the American Department of Justice 43% of all guns used in crimes are sourced on the black market! I quoted an entire article on that in my last reply to you prior to this one! Understand? 
 

Guns on the black market are already much more expensive than legally bought guns in a gun store or at a show. The article stated that as well! Obviously the crims understand that that comes with the territory. Understand? 
 

What I’m saying is, and this is also in the article, banning legal guns or making changes to the existing gun laws won’t reduce gun crimes. Read the fricking article! It’s a survey of the Department of Justice! 

Stop with your rectum fixation.  I contrasted the ease of hiding drugs with the difficulty of hiding guns.  That's it.  Find something else to fixate on.

 

You did not provide a link to the source of your claim about 43% of guns sourced on the black market.  I have my doubts about your claim that it said changing existing gun laws would not reduce gun crimes.

 

Edit:  I found your survey.   https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf

 

It states:

 

"An estimated 287,400 prisoners had possessed a firearm during their offense. Among these, more than half (56%) had either stolen it (6%), found it at the scene of the crime (7%), or obtained it off the street or from the underground market (43%). "

 

"off the street" would be the kind of person to person cash sell I described earlier.  Unless the seller knows the gun is stolen or the buyer isn't legally allowed to own a gun or will use the gun to commit a crime the seller can not be convicted of a crime.

 

Also, even in the case of stolen guns, most if not all of those guns started out as legal weapons and then were stolen, usually because of lax storage by legal gun owners.

 

Where does this article state that changing gun laws will not reduce gun crime?

 

BTW:  The guns owned by a little less than 300,000 prisoners would represent a very small percentage of guns in the US. 

Edited March 29, 2021 by heybruce

[heybruce]

53 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

Are not background checks not an attempt to to identify people that are likely to commit gun crimes? If not, what is the purpose of them? 

 

If background checks are not practical,  why have them?

 

And why is it deflection to discuss them? 

 

Background checks are supposed to keep guns out of hands of known criminals and mentally unstable people.  They are a good idea, but obviously can not catch people who have yet to commit a crime.  Identifying those people is impossible, which is why it makes sense to keep guns designed for combat use out of the public hands.  (Don't start with the plinking and varmint hunting again, as I've explained repeatedly other guns do those jobs as well or better than assault rifles.)

 

It's a deflection because the topic is about someone who already used a gun that should not have been legally available to kill ten people.  If you can identify how that person could have been identified in advance it would be on topic.

[robblok]

13 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

 

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. 

The function of a gun is to kill people or animals. I can understand hunters having a gun (not sure why a hunter or anyone would need a semi automatic gun). If it was just about target shooting the guns could be stored at the club to never go home. But strangely that is not happening. 

 

Also for shooting you don't need semi automatic guns and stuff like that. Your argument does not hold much water. I agree about guns for hunting. Bolt action ones not semi automatic. 

[Yellowtail]

14 minutes ago, robblok said:

The function of a gun is to kill people or animals. I can understand hunters having a gun (not sure why a hunter or anyone would need a

 

semi automatic gun). If it was just about target shooting the guns could be stored at the club to never go home. But strangely that is not happening. 

 

Also for shooting you don't need semi automatic guns and stuff like that. Your argument does not hold much water. I agree about guns for hunting. Bolt action ones not semi automatic. 

 

With all due respect, I doubt you hunt or shoot or know much about guns.

 

Semi-automatic firearms have been around for over a hundred years. The are not something new. The reason many hunters prefer semi-automatic rifles is because animals generally do not die instantly unless hit perfectly. Regardless of what the NRA might say, animals do not like being shot, and if you shoot them, and only injure them, they run away, and they often run very far. Animals often have to be shot more than once to be stopped. You do not want to chase the animal too far, and you don't want the animal getting away and taking days to bleed-out. 

 

Again, many people in the US use guns for hunting, plinking, target shooting, protection, collecting and whatever the owner sees fit to use them for. As long as what they are doing is legal, what business is it of of anyone else's why they want them and what they use them for?  Shooting and gun owning are activities people enjoy, whether or not they NEED guns is irrelevant. Most people in the US do not NEED a gun, but clearly some people do, and to believe otherwise is foolish. 

 

Most people that own guns  in the US do not belong to gun clubs, and many never go to public ranges. People that belong to clubs typically shoot and hunt in places other than the club they belong to. People that shoot at public rages often do not shoot at the same range all the time, and again, their shooting is often not limited to ranges. Also, after shooting, guns typically need to be serviced. Most people do this themselves, and do it at home.

 

Many people hunt and shoot on their own property and or on public land. It is really no different than fishing, except that it is more difficult to kill someone with fishing gear. Imagine garroting people gets popular, and it turns out spetra/braid was really effective for garroting, so much so that it became the weapon of choice. The government steps in and bans braid, and says you can only use monofilament. Do you think that banning spectra would have any significant effect on the problem?

 

People in the US have the right to own firearms and to keep them in their homes. There is a vehicle in place to repeal this right. Let the people that want to remove this right gather the support they need and go through the process of repealing  it. 

 

Most proposed run control will do little or nothing to slow, much less stop gun violence. What it will do is make it disproportionally difficult for the poor to own guns, while doing nothing to restrict the rich from having guns. Most people posting in this thread seem to applaud this, I do not. I think the poor have just as much right to own a gun as the rich. 

 

 

 

 

[Surelynot]

19 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

but it’s being held hostage by the gun activists GOPs in congress

Absolute poison.....they should be held to account for their totally selfish, immoral and unprincipled actions......sadly they never will be.

[Surelynot]

4 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

People in the US have the right to own firearms and to keep them in their homes.

What a sick country.

[Yellowtail]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

Background checks are supposed to keep guns out of hands of known criminals and mentally unstable people.  They are a good idea, but obviously can not catch people who have yet to commit a crime.  Identifying those people is impossible, which is why it makes sense to keep guns designed for combat use out of the public hands.  (Don't start with the plinking and varmint hunting again, as I've explained repeatedly other guns do those jobs as well or better than assault rifles.)

 

It's a deflection because the topic is about someone who already used a gun that should not have been legally available to kill ten people.  If you can identify how that person could have been identified in advance it would be on topic.

 

People in this thread seem to be insisting that stricter background checks would could have prevented this, because the killer had a conviction for assault. 

 

I know you do not want me to bring up target shooting, plinking and varmint hunting again because it is what these guns are typically sold and used for. I know that other guns are available that will generally do as well as an AR for these things, but I do not see the relevance of that argument, and I do not see how, with the exception of the high capacity clip, the AR is be significantly more deadly than any other rifle. 

 

What branch of the military use the AR-15 as it's weapon of choice in combat? 

[polpott]

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

I do not see how, with the exception of the high capacity clip, the AR is be significantly more deadly than any other rifle. 

 

There's none so blind as those that can't see.

[Yellowtail]

3 minutes ago, polpott said:

There's none so blind as those that can't see.

Yes, I think it safe to say that people that can't see are blind.

 

It's people like you that will not see that are the problem. 

 

 

Edited March 29, 2021 by Yellowtail

[bunnydrops]

I shot my first gun at the age of six at man targets in the basement. My father was shore patrol (Navy Police). He showed how to take the gun apart and clean it. At 12 I could walk down town with my .22 rifle and go into a store and buy bullets for it without any problems. That was in the 50s. Then people saw guns as a tool for hunting and protecting livestock, not for killing people, shooting at cans for sport. Now, things have changed, not so much with the guns but peoples attitude towards each other. I just read today that gun use in road rage has almost doubled in 3 years. Now people think they need guns to protect themselves from the "others". I want to install an aircraft gun on my roof to protect myself from all those flying "Bad Guys". Where will it end?

 

[Surelynot]

On 3/29/2021 at 11:02 AM, bunnydrops said:

I shot my first gun at the age of six at man targets in the basement. My father was shore patrol (Navy Police). He showed how to take the gun apart and clean it. At 12 I could walk down town with my .22 rifle and go into a store and buy bullets for it without any problems. That was in the 50s. Then people saw guns as a tool for hunting and protecting livestock, not for killing people, shooting at cans for sport. Now, things have changed, not so much with the guns but peoples attitude towards each other. I just read today that gun use in road rage has almost doubled in 3 years. Now people think they need guns to protect themselves from the "others". I want to install an aircraft gun on my roof to protect myself from all those flying "Bad Guys". Where will it end?

 

 

It won't..........under no circumstances are the gun fraternity going to give up their "God given" rights to a gun...... to hell with everyone else and their desire to be safe in their own country.......I have to have my gun.

 

Edited March 30, 2021 by onthedarkside
trolling image removed

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, Surelynot said:

It won't..........under no circumstances are the gun fraternity going to give up their "God given" rights to a gun...... to hell with everyone else and their desire to be safe in their own country.......I have to have my gun.

 

 

 

And yet another clear, concise and thought out post that really addresses the issues being discussed. 

 

Where is all that hate coming from dude? You you should really try to get a handle on it before we end up reading about you shooting up a store somewhere....

[Surelynot]

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

 

 

And yet another clear, concise and thought out post that really addresses the issues being discussed. 

 

Where is all that hate coming from dude? You you should really try to get a handle on it before we end up reading about you shooting up a store somewhere....

There is nothing to discuss......no guns....no carnage.

 

Any discussions are just wheedling away at you trying to have your cake and eat.....doesn't work......no guns is the only answer.

Edited March 29, 2021 by Surelynot

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

 

<snip>Animals often have to be shot more than once to be stopped. You do not want to chase the animal too far, and you don't want the animal getting away and taking days to bleed-out. <snip>

So now the bleeding heart argument is you need semi-automatic weapons in order to stop the shot animal from hurting too much.

Please be honest.

[Surelynot]

Just now, stevenl said:

So now the bleeding heart argument is you need semi-automatic weapons in order to stop the shot animal from hurting too much.

Please be honest.

Back of the net.....brilliant.

[Yellowtail]

11 minutes ago, stevenl said:

So now the bleeding heart argument is you need semi-automatic weapons in order to stop the shot animal from hurting too much.

Please be honest.

 

It has little to do with the animal hurting too much. If you have been following along, you should know that I was responding to someone that asked why a hunter would want a semi-automatic. I explained that if the animal is not killed instantly, the hunter has to chase the animal down. The hunter does not want to case the animal down, and when the hunter does chase the animal down, the hunter has to drag the animal back. Dragging a 100-300 dear through the woods is not pleasant, particularly as they generally run down hill, and it seems like always away from the camp and or truck. 

 

I understand, you guys don't like guns or hunting, and you seem to hate the people that do. 

[Sujo]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

 

With all due respect, I doubt you hunt or shoot or know much about guns.

 

Semi-automatic firearms have been around for over a hundred years. The are not something new. The reason many hunters prefer semi-automatic rifles is because animals generally do not die instantly unless hit perfectly. Regardless of what the NRA might say, animals do not like being shot, and if you shoot them, and only injure them, they run away, and they often run very far. Animals often have to be shot more than once to be stopped. You do not want to chase the animal too far, and you don't want the animal getting away and taking days to bleed-out. 

 

Again, many people in the US use guns for hunting, plinking, target shooting, protection, collecting and whatever the owner sees fit to use them for. As long as what they are doing is legal, what business is it of of anyone else's why they want them and what they use them for?  Shooting and gun owning are activities people enjoy, whether or not they NEED guns is irrelevant. Most people in the US do not NEED a gun, but clearly some people do, and to believe otherwise is foolish. 

 

Most people that own guns  in the US do not belong to gun clubs, and many never go to public ranges. People that belong to clubs typically shoot and hunt in places other than the club they belong to. People that shoot at public rages often do not shoot at the same range all the time, and again, their shooting is often not limited to ranges. Also, after shooting, guns typically need to be serviced. Most people do this themselves, and do it at home.

 

Many people hunt and shoot on their own property and or on public land. It is really no different than fishing, except that it is more difficult to kill someone with fishing gear. Imagine garroting people gets popular, and it turns out spetra/braid was really effective for garroting, so much so that it became the weapon of choice. The government steps in and bans braid, and says you can only use monofilament. Do you think that banning spectra would have any significant effect on the problem?

 

People in the US have the right to own firearms and to keep them in their homes. There is a vehicle in place to repeal this right. Let the people that want to remove this right gather the support they need and go through the process of repealing  it. 

 

Most proposed run control will do little or nothing to slow, much less stop gun violence. What it will do is make it disproportionally difficult for the poor to own guns, while doing nothing to restrict the rich from having guns. Most people posting in this thread seem to applaud this, I do not. I think the poor have just as much right to own a gun as the rich. 

 

 

 

 

Im sure people wont mind doing away with automatic guns so that others can live.

[Sujo]

4 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

It has little to do with the animal hurting too much. If you have been following along, you should know that I was responding to someone that asked why a hunter would want a semi-automatic. I explained that if the animal is not killed instantly, the hunter has to chase the animal down. The hunter does not want to case the animal down, and when the hunter does chase the animal down, the hunter has to drag the animal back. Dragging a 100-300 dear through the woods is not pleasant, particularly as they generally run down hill, and it seems like always away from the camp and or truck. 

 

I understand, you guys don't like guns or hunting, and you seem to hate the people that do. 

Oh the poor hunter has to work a bit harder to kill an animal.

 

But lets not be concerned about people being killed.

[Andy from Kent]

1 minute ago, Sujo said:

Im sure people wont mind doing away with automatic guns so that others can live.

 

Sorry, Sujo, but I'm sure you're not correct about that.      People who support gun ownership in the USA are fervent about it.      I don't know if there's a common denominator among them but  the concept of "freedom" seems to ring among them.      It doesn't seem to come down to education or intelligence when it comes to gun control.

[Yellowtail]

27 minutes ago, Andy from Kent said:

 

Sorry, Sujo, but I'm sure you're not correct about that.      People who support gun ownership in the USA are fervent about it.      I don't know if there's a common denominator among them but  the concept of "freedom" seems to ring among them.      It doesn't seem to come down to education or intelligence when it comes to gun control.

 

Actually it does. All the really smart people think that if you stop selling assault rifles, which represent only a small percentage of gun deaths, it it will significantly reduce the number of gun deaths.

 

All the really stupid people, do not understand how stopping the sale of assault rifles, which only represent a small percentage of gun deaths, will significantly reduce gun deaths. 

 

To make matters worse, all the really smart people are calling the really stupid people names, and refusing to explain to the really stupid people, how stopping the sale of assault rifles, which again, only represent a small percentage of gun deaths, is going to significantly reduce the number of guns deaths.

 

If only the really smart people would explain to the really stupid people how banning the sale of assault rifles will significantly reduce the number of gun deaths, when assault rifles only represent a small percentage of gun deaths, the really stupid people would understand, and everyone would be in agreement.

 

But, here we are...

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

 

People in this thread seem to be insisting that stricter background checks would could have prevented this, because the killer had a conviction for assault. 

 

I know you do not want me to bring up target shooting, plinking and varmint hunting again because it is what these guns are typically sold and used for. I know that other guns are available that will generally do as well as an AR for these things, but I do not see the relevance of that argument, and I do not see how, with the exception of the high capacity clip, the AR is be significantly more deadly than any other rifle. 

 

What branch of the military use the AR-15 as it's weapon of choice in combat? 

The AR-15 is based on the M-16.  I'm sure you know that, you're just diverting again.

 

Combat weapons and their derivatives don't need to be in civilian hands.  They aren't necessary, serve no purpose that can't be fulfilled with non-combat guns, and are more dangerous when in the wrong hands.  There is no good reason for a civilian to own an assault rifle.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

 

 

And yet another clear, concise and thought out post that really addresses the issues being discussed. 

 

Where is all that hate coming from dude? You you should really try to get a handle on it before we end up reading about you shooting up a store somewhere....

You reject all clear, concise and thought out posts on the subject of gun control on the grounds that varmint hunting and plinking with an assault rifle is fun.