Shooting erupts at Colorado supermarket, bloodied man shown in handcuffs

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, Thomas J said:

Correct and to my point, it was the despicable character of the person not the fertilizer.  The same is true of all mass killings.  The weapon is merely an instrument. 

One of the differences is that with guns the weapon was made to kill, cars were made to transport.

[Thomas J]

2 minutes ago, Walker88 said:

Obviously there can be limits on what weapons are available to be owned by the public.

Ok of the these guns which one should be banned? 

 

[Surelynot]

1 minute ago, Thomas J said:

Ok of the these guns which one should be banned? 

 

The one's that fire bullets.

[SunnyinBangrak]

10 minutes ago, PatOngo said:

Why is it so prevelent in America?

Lack of social cohesion. This is why countries like Japan, with a strong national identity tend not to have these atrocities. While countries with a shattered social cohesion like Sweden, the UK and others have numerous attacks. Blaming the weapon used is beyond dumb.

 Interesting how the narrative surrounding this shooting did a quick 180, initial tweets from media figures were crowing about this being a white supremacist attack. That worked out well. Blame whites, blame guns, then when shooter was a refugee from Syria - don't question open borders. Just no rhyme or reason to the response.

[Rimmer]

Some troll posts removed also some cut and paste posts

[Surelynot]

2 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Lack of social cohesion. This is why countries like Japan, with a strong national identity tend not to have these atrocities. While countries with a shattered social cohesion like Sweden, the UK and others have numerous attacks. Blaming the weapon used is beyond dumb.

 Interesting how the narrative surrounding this shooting did a quick 180, initial tweets from media figures were crowing about this being a white supremacist attack. That worked out well. Blame whites, blame guns, then when shooter was a refugee from Syria - don't question open borders. Just no rhyme or reason to the response.

Probably a perfect example of how America has ended up in the position it is now in.........what a sad comment.

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, Surelynot said:

The one's that fire bullets.

 

I think an argument can be made that confiscation of all firearms would have a significant positive impact reducing gun deaths, and while I do not support that position, I respect people that make that argument.

 

I have no respect for people that want to restrict the rights of all law abiding citizens, and promote legislation that disproportionally restricts the rights of poor Americans.

[Surelynot]

2 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

The violence in the black communities is tied to drug trafficking as rival drug gangs fight for territory.  You also have a situation where families have grown up for generations involved in crime and drugs.

But doesn't this have its origins in lack of opportunity and inequalities both of which stem from racism?

 

If you could not 'see' color, detect an accent, perceive racial origins...... wouldn't these people be living 'ordinary' lives instead of drug dealing?

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, Surelynot said:

But doesn't this have its origins in lack of opportunity and inequalities both of which stem from racism?

 

If you could not 'see' color, detect an accent, perceive racial origins...... wouldn't these people be living 'ordinary' lives instead of drug dealing?

 

No shortage of white, brown and Asian drug dealers. I think you watch too many movies.

[Surelynot]

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

I have no respect for people that want to restrict the rights of all law abiding citizens, and promote legislation that disproportionally restricts the rights of poor Americans.

So you would legalize cocaine, heroin, prostitution....? As long as law abiding citizens promised to enjoy these in a law abiding way.

[kwonitoy]

8 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

Ok of the these guns which one should be banned? 

 

Last year Canada brought in draconian gun laws after the Nova Scotia shooting rampage.

Our hipster Prime minister used a Order in Council, which requires no vote in Parliament.

 

The top gun in your photos, especially if its black is now banned because its an "assault style rifle" 

The second gun which could be the same caliber and shoot the same cartridge as the first is allowed, but with a 5 shot maximum clip. Gun owners are not happy, the Police think its a stupid unenforceable law, and gun control advocates are also unhappy.

 

Try do that in the US? never going to happen

[Surelynot]

3 minutes ago, SunnyinBangrak said:

Rules of PC and wokeness dictate you are automatically right and can not be questioned

Where on earth do you get that from?....this is open forum (as long as you obey the rules)

[Yellowtail]

Just now, Surelynot said:

So you would legalize cocaine, heroin, prostitution....? As long as law abiding citizens promised to enjoy these in a law abiding way.

 

Not prostitution, but coke and heroin, sure. 

[Surelynot]

6 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

No shortage of white, brown and Asian drug dealers. I think you watch too many movies.

Hence my earlier question about our/my perception of real America.

[Surelynot]

7 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

No shortage of white, brown and Asian drug dealers. I think you watch too many movies.

So ultimately it comes down to pure, unadulterated (see what I did there re: drugs) greed?

 

Why work hard for a living when you might make a fortune doing very little?

[Yellowtail]

4 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

So ultimately it comes down to pure, unadulterated (see what I did there re: drugs) greed?

 

Why work hard for a living when you might make a fortune doing very little?

 

Most people dealing drugs do it to support their habits, but yes, generally the ones that are in it for the money are just in it for the money. 

 

 

[PatOngo]

40 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

Inequality.........or rather extremes of inequality?

Lack of opportunity?

Racism....which lies at the heart of inequality and lack of opportunity

 

No doubt there are whole tomes on the subject

Land of the free and the home of the brave?

[Surelynot]

8 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

 

Most people dealing drugs do it to support their habits, but yes, generally the ones that are in it for the money are just in it for the money. 

 

 

....but that then takes you back to the same question I guess.....what drives people to take this 'greed' route? Why are they so greedy..... is it that other options are so poor they are prepared to take this route, knowing the potential of making a lot of money even though it goes hand in hand with the potential of a very short life span.

 

I can see the basic greed argument, but it must also be a pretty scary life.....or as you say......they have been doing it for generations and it has become a 'normal' way of life???

[richard_smith237]

5 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

yep  Gun killing a clay target. 

Yep gun killing a metal target

Yet gun killing a paper target

Yep gun only used to kill a person

Yep gun not needed for self protection 
 

 

AR-15, a semi-auto rifle,  30 round magazine (5.56 NATO ammo). Muzzle velocity of 3200 ft/second.

16” barrel, precision from a few hundred meters. 

 

What AR-15’s are used for Clay targets - with sports shooting (as shown in your photo ?)

 

What is the design purpose of a semi-automatic ?? Sporting applications ???

 

How can anyone with a handgun defend thesmelves against a Semi-Automatic ?

 

-------

 

So many claiming their second amendment rights would think differently if a loved one of theirs was mown down by a nutcase with easy access to an automatic rifle. 

 

There are two debates which shouldn’t get mixed up, but are deliberately overlapped to muddy the gun-debate waters. 

 

1) Any Gun (concealed carry or not) - Should it be allowed or not ?

2) Automatic Weapons / Rifles - Should private individuals be allowed to carry them or not ?

 

IMO anyone who believes that privately carrying or owning an automatic weapon should be allowed is similar to someone saying private individuals should be allowed to carry Hand Grenades or rocket-launchers !!! - anyone could turn hand grenade throwing or rocket launcher firing a sport !!!  Just because since their inception someone can make a sport out of something does not justify its existence or make private ownership justifiable. 

 

Clearly Automatic weapons should not be allowed in the hands of any private individual. 

Is this punishing the ‘responsible carriers / owners’ - unfortunately yes, but the lowest common denominator is the reason for much of the controls we see in life, speed limits etc.

 

-----

 

As for the arguments that ‘cars also kill’  - these arguments are not worth discussion, they are the thoughts of an idiot who is unable to think beyond common sense.

[Surelynot]

3 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

You are only saying that because "you choose" not to see any benefits from owning a firearm.  There are many things in life that others enjoy that cause far greater number of deaths yet there is no call to ban them because "we can live without them" 


Do we need Alcohol - No 

Do we need cigarettes - No

 

Do we need to swim - No


Do we need Big Macs, French Fries-No

 

Not exclusively for sure, but most of these things you list are choices made by people which generally result in them killing themselves...........which I strongly believe in is a right........being killed by someone else by a gun does not fall into the same category as drinking,smoking, swimming etc by any stretch of the imagination.

 

Nice try though.

[Thomas J]

2 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

WHAT????

I know.  We could certainly live without those and ice cream, donuts, cake, pie, and bred but then would it really be a life worth living. 

 

[richard_smith237]

5 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

You are only saying that because "you choose" not to see any benefits from owning a firearm.  There are many things in life that others enjoy that cause far greater number of deaths yet there is no call to ban them because "we can live without them" 


Do we need Alcohol - No 
 

Do we need cigarettes - No
 

Do we need to swim - No

Do we need Big Macs, French Fries-No

 

 

The argument that ‘other things’ are bad, so guns should be allowed is utterly outrageous and incredibly stupid, but it does highlight the narrow minded thought process of Gun-lovers....

 

In aggregate the benefits of privately owned firearms are outweighed by the negative consequences.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Thomas J]

3 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

What AR-15’s are used for Clay targets - with sports shooting (as shown in your photo ?)

 

 

 

The AR-15 is nothing more than a .223 caliber semi-automatic rifle.  The below rifle is identical in terms of bullets used, and function.  It just doesn't look scary. 



This is where the .223 falls in terms of its size and force relative to other centerfire rifle cartridges.  at 22 caliber it is among the smallest cartridge not the most powerful.  

Again, if you ban the AR-15 because it "looks scary"  and after that mass shooters gravitate to lets say the M1 Garand which is .30 caliber so noticeably more powerful do you ban those too? 

[Surelynot]

16 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

You are only saying that because "you choose" not to see any benefits from owning a firearm.

Benefits from owning a firearm?......nah.......just having an obsession for firearms does not make it have any real benefits other than satisfying ones obsession ........bit like heroin......plenty are obsessed by it.......but no benefits.

[Surelynot]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

 

Not prostitution, but coke and heroin, sure. 

Not prostitution.......???

[Surelynot]

4 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

 

 

 

The AR-15 is nothing more than a .223 caliber semi-automatic rifle.  The below rifle is identical in terms of bullets used, and function.  It just doesn't look scary. 



This is where the .223 falls in terms of its size and force relative to other centerfire rifle cartridges.  at 22 caliber it is among the smallest cartridge not the most powerful.  

Again, if you ban the AR-15 because it "looks scary"  and after that mass shooters gravitate to lets say the M1 Garand which is .30 caliber so noticeably more powerful do you ban those too? 

Yep.

[Thomas J]

6 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

In aggregate the benefits of privately owned firearms are outweighed by the negative consequences.

Again,  you are saying that solely because 'YOU DON'T SEE THE BENEFITS"  I don't smoke so banning cigarettes does not impact me and smoking kills far more and greatly outweighs any benefits. 

I don't routinely drink anything other than beer, but alcoholism kills more and has far more devastating  health consequences than firearms but I see no great cry to ban it. 

To beat a dead horse, even if I agreed with you, it is a illusion to think that the USA or any nation can prohibit firearms from within its borders.  
Firearms are easily machined within the USA and certainly our border with Mexico and drugs proves how porous it was.  We can stop illegal migrants, we can't stop drugs, we can stop human trafficking, but somehow we can stop guns?  

If prohibition and the war on drugs proved anything its that making something illegal merely shoots it distribution to the criminal element. 

 

[Walker88]

23 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

 

 

 

The AR-15 is nothing more than a .223 caliber semi-automatic rifle.  The below rifle is identical in terms of bullets used, and function.  It just doesn't look scary. 



This is where the .223 falls in terms of its size and force relative to other centerfire rifle cartridges.  at 22 caliber it is among the smallest cartridge not the most powerful.  

Again, if you ban the AR-15 because it "looks scary"  and after that mass shooters gravitate to lets say the M1 Garand which is .30 caliber so noticeably more powerful do you ban those too? 

In the equation E=mc^2, what input do you think has the largest effect on E?  Mass or velocity?

 

I'll let you do the math:

 

5.56 NATO, 55 grain, 3200 fps muzzle velocity from a 16" barrel AR-15

9mm FMJ,  124 grain, 1000 fps muzzle velocity from a handgun

.45 ACP, 230 grain, 850 FPS muzzle velocity from a handgun

 

Emergency room physicians who treat all types of gunshot wounds will tell you the 9mm and .45 ACP are much easier to treat/save the victim.

 

Then consider the mag/clip. ARs and AKs typically are fitted with a 30 round mag, and perps tend to carry several extra mags. Non-AR/AK rifles tend to have much smaller mags. The Garand you show has a small clip and it takes more time to replace a clip than an AR or AK mag. Also, it's a bit more difficult to conceal a Garand, while a 'pistol' style AR-15 with a folding stock, or an SBR, can easily be hidden under a winter jacket or in a bag.

 

A rifle used by a sniper (or hunter) is also less deadly, because it takes time to acquire a target and aim. In close quarters, such as a church, supermarket, school, etc., where every is a target and gathered in mass (despite social distancing), a person can kill dozens faster than the best sniper. it takes no marksman skill to take out 10 people in a food store or 50 in a dark nightclub.

 

ARs and AKs have extremely limited utility, unless one wants to kill a lot of people quickly. Home defense? Your neighbors might not like it if a round passes through your wall and into their house. Hunting? If one needs 30 rounds to take down an animal, best to buy your burgers at McDonalds.

Edited March 24, 2021 by Walker88

[richard_smith237]

22 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

39 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

In aggregate the benefits of privately owned firearms are outweighed by the negative consequences.

Again,  you are saying that solely because 'YOU DON'T SEE THE BENEFITS"  I don't smoke so banning cigarettes does not impact me and smoking kills far more and greatly outweighs any benefits. 

I don't routinely drink anything other than beer, but alcoholism kills more and has far more devastating  health consequences than firearms but I see no great cry to ban it. 

Nope... You are saying that and replacing my argument with what you want my argument to be so you can form a response. 

 

Simplified for you: 

-  ‘private gun ownership does not benefit society’ 

-  ‘other ‘bad stuff’ such as big-macs and booze does not make gun ownership any less damaging to society'

 

 

22 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

To beat a dead horse, even if I agreed with you, it is a illusion to think that the USA or any nation can prohibit firearms from within its borders.  
Firearms are easily machined within the USA and certainly our border with Mexico and drugs proves how porous it was.  We can stop illegal migrants, we can't stop drugs, we can stop human trafficking, but somehow we can stop guns?  

 

Stop their manufacture in such numbers, limit availability of rounds - its not that complex is it ?

 

Perfectly doable and highly shortsighted to think it an illusion that ’something can be done’.... something can easily be done and has been done in many other countries. 

 

The US is clearly a case study in what ’not to do’ when it comes to guns. 

 

 

22 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

If prohibition and the war on drugs proved anything its that making something illegal merely shoots it distribution to the criminal element. 

 

The war on drugs and gun manufacture comes hand in hand... 

Without the war on drugs there is no need for as many guns, there is no need to sell guns to those countries... 

The Arms manufacturers lose money, effectively loosing lobbying power - That would be a win win for the average citizen, but not for those with their hands in the pockets of the gun lobbyists and arms manufacturers. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Eric Loh]

31 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

Again,  you are saying that solely because 'YOU DON'T SEE THE BENEFITS"  I don't smoke so banning cigarettes does not impact me and smoking kills far more and greatly outweighs any benefits. 

I don't routinely drink anything other than beer, but alcoholism kills more and has far more devastating  health consequences than firearms but I see no great cry to ban it. 

To beat a dead horse, even if I agreed with you, it is a illusion to think that the USA or any nation can prohibit firearms from within its borders.  
Firearms are easily machined within the USA and certainly our border with Mexico and drugs proves how porous it was.  We can stop illegal migrants, we can't stop drugs, we can stop human trafficking, but somehow we can stop guns?  

If prohibition and the war on drugs proved anything its that making something illegal merely shoots it distribution to the criminal element. 

 

A pretty lame defence of gun rights. Smoking and drinking don't kill children and high school kids. In fact there are more laws prohibiting buying of cigarettes and alcohol than guns laws. Of course US can do more to reduce the number of guns ownerships. More draconian laws to deter illegal owneship, an expansive universal background checks to cover all sales than current law, raising taxes on firearms and ammunitions, banning assault weapons and mandatory registeration of all guns owners. Simple practical laws that majority of US citizens welcome but resisted by the Reps and you.