‘America is killing itself’: world reacts with horror and incomprehension to Texas shooting

[Bkk Brian]

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Machine guns are not legal to own in the US. 

Not what it says here? 

 

While machine guns are heavily regulated and generally difficult to obtain, it is possible to legally own this type of firearm if you meet certain requirements. In fact, many hobbyists see the machine gun as the ultimate addition to their vaults because of the expense and difficulty associated with purchasing one.

 

https://www.therange702.com/blog/can-you-legally-own-a-machine-gun/

[fredwiggy]

3 minutes ago, coolcarer said:

What makes you think I didn’t read all your posts, even the ones that were deleted for being off topic?

 

Although you were the one who advocates teachers carrying firearms if they want, kind of wraps up what you really feel and your lack of understanding in Child Psychology and the consequences of those children being brought up in a gun culture.

Like I said, many years, 25 in fact, reading daily about those subjects. Children have been brought up with guns since they were invented. Being exposed to gun, or any violence, has lasting effects. Things are getting worse yes, but higher populations means more mentally ill, more media coverage means we hear about everything, fast. I've raised, and am still raising, 6 children, one here being 5, and the others grew up with me hunting and some hunt, others don't, but they learned gun safety since they could understand, respect for all animals, especially why I hunt, and respect towards humans and domestic animals. They all love animals, respect elders and all races, and all have been from a broken home. But they knew they were loved and cared for, no matter what I might have done wrong along the way. Having a child see gun violence is what video games have been teaching them for many years, and although gaming is fun, it de sensitizes them. Do we ban all video games as well? Things have to be done, but banning some guns will not solve the problems.

[zzaa09]

In a hypothetical and parallel instance......imagine the world without an America and it's negative set. 

[fredwiggy]

1 minute ago, zzaa09 said:

In a hypothetical and parallel instance......imagine the world without an America and it's negative set. 

And imagine a world without Germany's Hitler set, Japan's Hirohito, Afghanistan's Bin laden, England's trying to take over this America, by violence, with guns, Cambodia's Pol Pot, England's trying to take over Scotland and Ireland, Rome trying to rule the world, by violence. America is a wonderful place to live, as the millions can attest. It does have problems, gun violence being one of them, and things have to change. This country is where a lot decide to retire, like me, until I saw it for what it really is, and some despise the US, UK and many other countries, so they move here to paradise, and see it for real.

[fredwiggy]

I defend the US yes, because although this does happen, it happens everywhere else also, and it does make the country look worse than it is. I lived there 62 years, and never saw gun violence.

[coolcarer]

7 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

Do we ban all video games as well? Things have to be done, but banning some guns will not solve the problems.

Again ignoring the facts and evidence already posted in this thread. Banning some guns is the first step, far stricter controls on others is the next. Those are evidence based facts and outcomes that work. Video games is another deflection on what needs to be done first.

[Lacessit]

28 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

So you are not for gun laws, you are for confiscation. That's what I thought. 

Australia still has 14 guns per 100 civilians.

Confiscation would mean zero guns per 100 civilians, perhaps you were asleep in English class.

When I owned guns in Australia after Port Arthur, I had up to four of them, all legal.

I'm just wondering when Americans will stop lying to themselves about the purpose of semi-automatic assault rifles, because it certainly isn't hunting or target practice.

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, coolcarer said:

Again ignoring the facts and evidence already posted in this thread. Banning some guns is the first step, far stricter controls on others is the next. Those are evidence based facts and outcomes that work. Video games is another deflection on what needs to be done first.

What guns need to be banned? I assume the real scary looking ones first, yes? 

 

What guns need to be banned? 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

32 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I think it is adjusted per-capita 

Thanks. Good point. Shows Australia is on the right track if you prefer less guns and less murders and less mass shootings. Australia not so different to America. Big cities. Lots of outdoors too. 

[Yellowtail]

54 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Australia still has 14 guns per 100 civilians.

Confiscation would mean zero guns per 100 civilians, perhaps you were asleep in English class.

When I owned guns in Australia after Port Arthur, I had up to four of them, all legal.

I'm just wondering when Americans will stop lying to themselves about the purpose of semi-automatic assault rifles, because it certainly isn't hunting or target practice.

Again, semi-automatics have been around for 140 year and have been in widespread use by civilians in the US for over 100 years.

 

So what gun law do you think should be implemented? 

Edited May 30, 2022 by onthedarkside
unsourced claim removed

[James105]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

Exactly, As you have pointed out several times, this thread is about ASSULT RIFLES, like the AR-15 which represents a tiny fraction of firearms deaths. 

 

It's clear no one cares about the 95% of firearm deaths caused by weapons other than assault rifle, as they do not fit the left's election agenda.

 

People that want to discuss something that will have a significant impact on ALL gun deaths should start another thread. Until then, they should not make misleading statements. 

 

People should be honest. I think we all know at least ten times as many kids are killed in automobile accidents each year than with assault rifles, yes?

 

We're in agreement. Any mention of gun deaths not related to assault rifles is off topic. 

 

I've not once said the AR-15 is an assault rifle.    Here is a wikipedia page talking about assault rifles so that you can learn about what an assault rifle is.  Hint:  An AR-15 is not an assault rifle.

 

Just like 95% of guns sold in America (probably), an AR-15 is a semi automatic, which means the shooter does not need to manually put a round in the chamber between shots so the nutcase can just keep squeezing the trigger and kill a kid every second or so.    Since it is a semi-automatic it gives law enforcement (you know, the good guys with the guns) no window of opportunity to charge between shots so they are left cowering in the corridor whilst the nutcase with the legally purchased semi-automatic rifle can carry on unimpeded.    

 

What is it with the car argument anyway?  It's too stupid to respond to as even a small child could tell you that the main purpose of a car is transport and the and the main purpose of a gun is to kill.   Is that one of the daft arguments from the NRA training manual or something?  

[KhunLA]

10 minutes ago, coolcarer said:

Again ignoring the facts and evidence already posted in this thread. Banning some guns is the first step, far stricter controls on others is the next. Those are evidence based facts and outcomes that work. Video games is another deflection on what needs to be done first.

Done first ... so video games would be next ????

[moogradod]

51 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Again, semi-automatics have been around for 140 year and have been in widespread use by civilians in the US for over 100 years.

 

So what gun law do you think should be implemented? 

I am not an expert at all, but how about looking to the countries that have sucessfully introduced meaningful gun laws, like Australia for example it seems.

 

The problem is not which law in every detail but that the US citizens should become accustomed with the idea and that it would help to save lives to ban, confiscate and restrict and not the opposite.

[EVENKEEL]

Let's say for argument sake sales of the scary looking AR-15's are banned, what about the millions already sold?

 

I had a .22 rifle at like age 12, had a .22 handgun age 15 as did many kids in the rural area I grew up. Something terrible has happened to our youth to make shooting up schools a viable response. And, thinking you can stop this insane behavior by banning scary looking guns is only a feel good measure which won't solve the problem.

[Jai Dee]

A number of argumentative posts and petty bickering comments have been removed.

[Yellowtail]

7 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Thanks. Good point. Shows Australia is on the right track if you prefer less guns and less murders and less mass shootings. Australia not so different to America. Big cities. Lots of outdoors too. 

Yeah, you guys are doing great:

Crime and justice | Australian Bureau of Statistics (abs.gov.au)

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, fredwiggy said:

Part of that is because Australia's population is about 26 million, and the US is about 340 million. About 13 times higher.

You were definitely asleep in maths class when ratio was explained. It doesn't matter what the relative populations are, it's the gun deaths PER 100,000 PEOPLE that matters.

[fredwiggy]

11 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

You were definitely asleep in maths class when ratio was explained. It doesn't matter what the relative populations are, it's the gun deaths PER 100,000 PEOPLE that matters.

  I was not thinking ratio but total

[Phoenix Rising]

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Why did the not use them to shut down the insurrection ? 

Huh?

[Phoenix Rising]

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Why, because you an unable to formulate a response? 

 

That's why it surprises me that you clearly don't care about all the deaths. BLM clearly does not. If they don't give a whit how many blacks kill other blacks, protesting that will not buy them many mansions....

What are you on (about)??

 

Note to self; Don't post while under the influence.

[James105]

29 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

What guns need to be banned? I assume the real scary looking ones first, yes? 

 

What guns need to be banned? 

I don't think guns need to be banned as such, but I would like to see the second amendment respected properly unlike how Americans play fast and loose with it at the moment.   For example, if (before being allowed to buy a gun),  this latest nutter had been compelled to join his local, well regulated militia, and his local, well regulated militia had provided appropriate training on the safe usage of firearms, and once the nutter had proven himself to be not a complete nutter and obtained a recommendation from his local, well regulated militia before being allowed to buy a gun then that might be a good starting point, would it not?  

[Yellowtail]

11 minutes ago, James105 said:

I've not once said the AR-15 is an assault rifle.    Here is a wikipedia page talking about assault rifles so that you can learn about what an assault rifle is.  Hint:  An AR-15 is not an assault rifle.

We agree, the AR-15 is not an assault rifle. It's just a scary looking semi-automatic.

 

11 minutes ago, James105 said:

Just like 95% of guns sold in America (probably), an AR-15 is a semi automatic, which means the shooter does not need to manually put a round in the chamber between shots so the nutcase can just keep squeezing the trigger and kill a kid every second or so.    Since it is a semi-automatic it gives law enforcement (you know, the good guys with the guns) no window of opportunity to charge between shots so they are left cowering in the corridor whilst the nutcase with the legally purchased semi-automatic rifle can carry on unimpeded.  

Okay, so the law enforcement guys are cowering, even though they have better semi-automatics, and there are typically more of them.

 

You do know that semi-automatic rifles have been widely owned by civilians for well over 100 years, yes? 

 

11 minutes ago, James105 said:

What is it with the car argument anyway?  It's too stupid to respond to as even a small child could tell you that the main purpose of a car is transport and the and the main purpose of a gun is to kill.   Is that one of the daft arguments from the NRA training manual or something?  

Yes, the main purpose of a car is for transport, and the main purpose of of a gun is to kill, yet there are about 1.4 deaths per 10,000 cars each year, and 1.0 deaths per 10.000 guns.

 

The guns don't seem to be performing very well, do they? 

 

 

[Fat is a type of crazy]

4 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Yeah, you guys are doing great:

Crime and justice | Australian Bureau of Statistics (abs.gov.au)

Shock. Country has crime. One thing good in Australia, seriously, is that we do have excellent records of all types of crimes  so we can have an honest account Australia wide of where we are. 

Crime Rate by Country 2022 (worldpopulationreview.com)

This shows Australia at 75 and the United States at 56 where the lower no is more crime.

But I suppose the fact that there is not a huge difference helps makes the point. Good and bad people in both countries, but one has lots of guns and one doesn't, and look at the difference in gun crime, murders, and mass shootings. 

[Lacessit]

3 minutes ago, James105 said:

I don't think guns need to be banned as such, but I would like to see the second amendment respected properly unlike how Americans play fast and loose with it at the moment.   For example, if (before being allowed to buy a gun),  this latest nutter had been compelled to join his local, well regulated militia, and his local, well regulated militia had provided appropriate training on the safe usage of firearms, and once the nutter had proven himself to be not a complete nutter and obtained a recommendation from his local, well regulated militia before being allowed to buy a gun then that might be a good starting point, would it not?  

You're making sense, just don't expect it to take hold on this thread.

[ozimoron]

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

Machine guns are not legal to own in the US. 

Exactly. So if you obtained one it would be confiscated, right? Thus, the second amendment does not convey an absolute right to own any guns. If a machine gun can be made illegal and still conform with the second amendment then any gun can similarly be made illegal.

[KhaoYai]

3 hours ago, fredwiggy said:

I know, because of my history, that many are "gun nuts". I am not. I only have 5, and they are for hunting only. I usually use my crossbow anyway.

5 guns and a crossbow and you don't consider yourself as a 'gun nut'.  Crossbow, oh well that's alright then, they don't kill anyone do they? ????

[Yellowtail]

17 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Exactly. So if you obtained one it would be confiscated, right? Thus, the second amendment does not convey an absolute right to own any guns. If a machine gun can be made illegal and still conform with the second amendment then any gun can similarly be made illegal.

Actually, a strong argument can be made that the Second Amendment protects the right to own virtually anything, but public opinion is such that no one wants to fight it. 

 

Public opinion is not such that that a rifle handed down for four generations be made illegal. 

 

There is nothing new about semi-automatic rifles.

 

Trying to ban handguns makes sense to me, I would not support it, but at least it would save a lot of lives. The assault rifle thing is silly. Again, a tiny percentage of gun deaths are from assault rifles.

 

But we have to do ANYTHING that will gin-up votes for the mid-terms... 

[Slip]

16 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Why are you telling everybody what they think? That's called projection.

He is a twice proven liar on this thread.  Projection is the least of his worries.  He has also managed to drown out all the more sensible voices from the pro-choice (gun only) side.  Hopefully the foot-shot was not with a AR15.

 

[James105]

7 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Compelling people to be part of well regulated militia would negate "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

 

Would support mandating firearm training in high school and the formation of local, well regulated militias? 

 

I'm guessing you're for repealing the Second Amendment and then banning yes? 

 

You think the should all be banned, don't you? 

You seem to be cherry picking the second amendment.  This is the full line:

 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

 

I don't even think your greatest legal minds can wrap their heads around the true intention of this line.  Some think it means the "State" should have the guns, some (NRA) think it means the individual.   It clearly needs updating and clarifying for the world today.     

[coolcarer]

1 hour ago, KhunLA said:

Done first ... so video games would be next ????

Huh? I did not bring up video games, it was from the poster I was replying to and a deflection, obviously not clear enough for you my apologies……..