Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Re: Mass Shootings - What will it take to change the law? [SWEDE63] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
SWEDE63 wrote:
All we ever hear from politicians are, "thoughts and prayers".

Is there any line that can be crossed where gun control/removal will ever be seriously discussed?

I naively thought a couple times things might change. Now I'm more cynical and can't see anything changing in the foreseeable future. What will it take or will there never be a change in the US?[/quote

almost a decade after Sandyhook, nothing has changed... nothing will change, America has accepted this as status quo.

Just Triing
Triathlete since 9:56:39 AM EST Aug 20, 2006.
Be kind English is my 2nd language. My primary language is Dave it's a unique evolution of English.
Quote Reply
Re: Mass Shootings - What will it take to change the law? [307trout] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
307trout wrote:
What are the unintended consequences to the 99.99999% of gun owners who never commit acts of violence with a firearm?

What are the unintended consequences? Are you afraid you might have to take up arms against MAGA and their insurrections?

We have the rule of law in America— unless the the GOP fucks democracy completely. In which case, fuck you even more for fighting against gun control and arming the motherfucking MAGA and their Meal Team Six.
Quote Reply
Re: Mass Shootings - What will it take to change the law? [307trout] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Chip every gun. Provide school and LE the ability to disable any gun at anytime.

The vast majority of mass shootings are perpetrated by the white conservative terrorists. I don’t know what rot exists in that culture but I think we should be honest that it exists.it needs to be rooted out within.
Quote Reply
Re: Mass Shootings - What will it take to change the law? [307trout] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
307trout wrote:

Maybe I wasn't clear, but I do believe there would be incredible amounts of violence against law enforcement (or the military) or whomever would be actually going door to door to confiscate guns in America. Law enforcement of some sort would be walking into literally millions of ambush scenarios and would face a pretty incredible armed resistance from non compliant citizens.

Exactly - Imagine a police officer making 50-60k (just a guess) going door to door in Chicago/Detroit etc. looking for unregistered guns. (after all - those are already illegally owned) All the lefties would be up in arms the first time the police got in a gun fight with a minority with an unregistered gun.

Start there, clean up the guns that are currently illegally owned and then come after the ones that are legally owned.

Enforce the laws already in place.

That's a plan. All of on the left approve of that plan?
Quote Reply
Re: Mass Shootings - What will it take to change the law? [CallMeMaybe] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
CallMeMaybe wrote:
Nice catch, Einstein.

A democracy is a country where the will of the people is expressed through its laws. The vast majority of Americans support common sense gun laws. It silly that you think a constitutional amendment is necessary for common sense gun laws. It’s silly that you think threats of violence from the gun-loving criminals is a valid argument against common sense gun laws.

What other pretend hurdle is there in the way of gun law reform? Our hands are tied and we have to accept gun deaths because…?

It’s the GOP and gun-loving culture. Fuck that bullshit.

If a person votes for a 2A candidate, then that person is voting for gun violence. Firearms became the leading cause of death among children and teenagers in the United States in 2020, according to new research using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The finding comes after a record 45,222 people died from firearm-related injuries in 2020 in the U.S., according to a letter published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Most of the deaths were from firearm homicide. https://www.usatoday.com/...ens-2020/7432860001/

Our hands are not tied. We have to vote the bullshit gun-nuts out.

Well, you tried to be a mature adult so I'll give you credit for the initial effort.

Based on my understanding, the "common sense" gun laws that you describe butt up against the 2nd amendment. So, in order to enact them and for them to stand, the US Constitution would have to be amended. Is that incorrect? It's happened before. There's a clearly defined mechanism.

Vote away. If there was such overwhelming support, as you claim, wouldn't things look a bit different?

It 100% can be done with votes from the "vast majority of Americans".

If the amendments happened, and the laws were changed, THEN you'd have to deal with resistance or non compliance. Until then, it's about public support, which you claim to have. So???
Quote Reply
Re: Mass Shootings - What will it take to change the law? [ajthomas] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ajthomas wrote:
Chip every gun. Provide school and LE the ability to disable any gun at anytime.

The vast majority of mass shootings are perpetrated by the white conservative terrorists. I don’t know what rot exists in that culture but I think we should be honest that it exists.it needs to be rooted out within.

How does one "chip every gun"?

They're not electronic devices. They're not wifi enabled. This is the most ridiculous thing I've heard yet.

It's hard to have an honest conversation with someone who evidently has near zero understanding of the thing they're trying to regulate.
Quote Reply
Re: Mass Shootings - What will it take to change the law? [CallMeMaybe] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
99% of people aren't reckless drivers, but we make people register vehicles and get licensed.

Does it stop accidents or people from getting killed? No.

Does it prevent mayhem and many people from dying needlessly? Yes.
Quote Reply
Re: Mass Shootings - What will it take to change the law? [307trout] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
307trout wrote:

What kind of controls exactly? Would they have helped in this case?

What are the unintended consequences to the 99.99999% of gun owners who never commit acts of violence with a firearm?

Assume that you can look at the issue with genuine interest in reform without obliterating the rights of those who don't share your view/bias.

There isn't a solution that will ensure responsible gun owners aren't adversely affected. In Australia we have strict gun laws since the Port Arthur massacre 25 years ago. I'm not sure what the laws are specifically, but they are very strict and certainly high powered, automatic military grade guns are banned. I think the perpetrator used an SLR and AR-15. Weapons like these are not legal in Australia. If the US adopted similar laws, this would mean responsible gun owners are affected. But it's probably what needs to happen. It would be extremely difficult for me to get my hands on any kind of gun, even a small handgun, legally or illegally in Australia. Shouldn't that be the case in the US? Can you not fire guns at gun clubs? The owners have to leave their weapons there?
Quote Reply
Re: Mass Shootings - What will it take to change the law? [zedzded] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
zedzded wrote:
307trout wrote:


What kind of controls exactly? Would they have helped in this case?

What are the unintended consequences to the 99.99999% of gun owners who never commit acts of violence with a firearm?

Assume that you can look at the issue with genuine interest in reform without obliterating the rights of those who don't share your view/bias.


There isn't a solution that will ensure responsible gun owners aren't adversely affected. In Australia we have strict gun laws since the Port Arthur massacre 25 years ago. I'm not sure what the laws are specifically, but they are very strict and certainly high powered, automatic military grade guns are banned. I think the perpetrator used an SLR and AR-15. Weapons like these are not legal in Australia. If the US adopted similar laws, this would mean responsible gun owners are affected. But it's probably what needs to happen. It would be extremely difficult for me to get my hands on any kind of gun, even a small handgun, legally or illegally in Australia. Shouldn't that be the case in the US? Can you not fire guns at gun clubs? The owners have to leave their weapons there?

I think you're correct in that there's no way to do both.
Quote Reply
Re: Mass Shootings - What will it take to change the law? [FishyJoe] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
If we can just outlaw abortion there will be an increased supply of babies to replace those that get their heads blown off in school.

So it will all even out eventually.

(Sorry the hopelessness of hearing all of the same arguments and knowing guns for dead kids is a trade off plenty are fine with makes me punchy).
Quote Reply
Re: Mass Shootings - What will it take to change the law? [cholla] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
That's total bullshit. Republican politicians are universally opposed to policies that make these things less likely to happen - like in every other developed country in the world. Open your fucking eyes and look in the mirror if you vote for those people.


Like in 2009 when the Democrats had the White House, Super Majority in the House, and 60 seats in the Senate.
Here's a list of Gun Control Measures passed under Speaker Pelosi in 2009:




Gun Control like Abortion raises too much money for both sides to do anything about it but raise money.
Quote Reply
Re: Mass Shootings - What will it take to change the law? [Cavechild] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
My memory is hazy, but didn’t Obama essentially put all his chips on getting Obamacare passed? Immigration and/or gun reform at that time simultaneously with the ACA would have been impossible.
Quote Reply
Re: Mass Shootings - What will it take to change the law? [307trout] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
307trout wrote:
SWEDE63 wrote:
All we ever hear from politicians are, "thoughts and prayers".

Is there any line that can be crossed where gun control/removal will ever be seriously discussed?

I naively thought a couple times things might change. Now I'm more cynical and can't see anything changing in the foreseeable future. What will it take or will there never be a change in the US?


What would you like to see done? Specifically.

How would you disarm America?

Would any guns be "allowed"?

Do you believe that plan is feasible?

Do you think Americans will give up their guns?

Would it provoke some degree of American civil war if the government attempts to take away the guns with force?

Obviously, wishing away guns or violence isn't going to do anything, and you'd have to alter the US Constitution which seems unlikely but it's certainly happened before.

Do you think banning guns will make illegal guns go away?

Do you believe the government should be able to take the right to own something away for any item if a few misuse it to cause harm to others or self?
Quote Reply
Re: Mass Shootings - What will it take to change the law? [307trout] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
307trout wrote:
ajthomas wrote:
Chip every gun. Provide school and LE the ability to disable any gun at anytime.

The vast majority of mass shootings are perpetrated by the white conservative terrorists. I don’t know what rot exists in that culture but I think we should be honest that it exists.it needs to be rooted out within.

How does one "chip every gun"?

They're not electronic devices. They're not wifi enabled. This is the most ridiculous thing I've heard yet.

It's hard to have an honest conversation with someone who evidently has near zero understanding of the thing they're trying to regulate.

The don’t have a conversation. The ability to not reply isn’t hard. But you needed to insult me so I suppose that makes not replying an impossibility for you.

For those who are serious about this, it is entirely possible to chip a gun. Smart guns certainly exist.

And while there would be plenty of nonchipped guns out there I am willing to bet that the weapons used today were purchased after Sandy hook.
Quote Reply
Re: Mass Shootings - What will it take to change the law? [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Let's talk about extreme options:

1. Why not re-open the mental hospitals and institutions that Reagan shut.
2. Why not automate life sentence if you are found in illegal possession of a firearm?
3. 5 day waiting period, 1 Approved Safety and training class, 3 references (willing to co-sign for liability).
4. National registry (O.k. this one isn't extreme and I don't know why it is such a big deal).
5. Ban on owning firearms if you have received mental health services, with a DB somewhere to track such information. (Yes I know this is an invasion of privacy, but we are trying to stop mass shootings right?)
Quote Reply
Re: Mass Shootings - What will it take to change the law? [307trout] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
307trout wrote:
Kay Serrar wrote:
307trout wrote:
runski09 wrote:
In the US, now?
Nothing. We could have 2-4 such school shootings a day for the next 3 years and the republicans would still fight tooth nail and for their lives to keep the gun laws as loose as possible. No concessions from them. Ever. Prove me wrong.


I don't think you can place it completely on Republican leadership, even though it's easy to demonize them (especially in the LR). Even without Republican leadership concessions, and specifically against their wishes, there are certain states with significant gun restrictions. It has happened. There are examples. The bottom line is that the gun control advocates simply don't have the votes across the country.


This kid, who by some initial accounts, seems to have been a little troubled, walked into a gun store upon turning 18 years old, and had no issue buying a gun. I think the majority of the population is in favor of some controls that would stop this kid being able to have done that. There is only one political party he’ll bent on stopping such measures being implemented. Stop kidding yourself.


What kind of controls exactly? Would they have helped in this case?

What are the unintended consequences to the 99.99999% of gun owners who never commit acts of violence with a firearm?

Assume that you can look at the issue with genuine interest in reform without obliterating the rights of those who don't share your view/bias.

I'd google the guy but I don't want to give the pathetic cunt the satisfaction/notoriety that he obviously sought.

The only reference to the actual gun(s) I've seen said "a handgun and possibly a rifle".

How about starting with having to be 21 to buy a gun?

And part of the problem with guns in this country is the sheer number and availability of them. Sure, most are owned by law abiding citizens, and they don’t use them to kill people, but the easy availability and large quantities of guns means our rates of gun deaths are far above those of other western countries. As Zed says about Australia, he can no longer buy an AR-15, but look at the consequences in terms of far fewer gun deaths. Or is it so important that he should be allowed to buy an AR-15 so he can shoot some tin cans at the weekend that Australians should tolerate mass shootings? Because that seems to be the crux of your argument for gun ownership here in the US.
Quote Reply
Re: Mass Shootings - What will it take to change the law? [FishyJoe] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
FishyJoe wrote:
99% of people aren't reckless drivers, but we make people register vehicles and get licensed.

Does it stop accidents or people from getting killed? No.

Does it prevent mayhem and many people from dying needlessly? Yes.

Lots of people drive without license, registration or insurance....despite the fact that it's illegal.

There are also some states that actually have no license or registration requirements and also have some of the lowest deaths per capita by firearm in the US.
Quote Reply
Re: Mass Shootings - What will it take to change the law? [ajthomas] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
ajthomas wrote:
307trout wrote:
ajthomas wrote:
Chip every gun. Provide school and LE the ability to disable any gun at anytime.

The vast majority of mass shootings are perpetrated by the white conservative terrorists. I don’t know what rot exists in that culture but I think we should be honest that it exists.it needs to be rooted out within.


How does one "chip every gun"?

They're not electronic devices. They're not wifi enabled. This is the most ridiculous thing I've heard yet.

It's hard to have an honest conversation with someone who evidently has near zero understanding of the thing they're trying to regulate.


The don’t have a conversation. The ability to not reply isn’t hard. But you needed to insult me so I suppose that makes not replying an impossibility for you.

For those who are serious about this, it is entirely possible to chip a gun. Smart guns certainly exist.

And while there would be plenty of nonchipped guns out there I am willing to bet that the weapons used today were purchased after Sandy hook.

"No smart gun has ever been sold on the commercial market in the United States" Smart guns do not exist in any real way any more than flying cars exist. Your suggestion is absurd and suggests a lack of basic understanding.
Quote Reply
Re: Mass Shootings - What will it take to change the law? [velocomp] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
extreme options.....

I am telling you right now equal to the guns is the internet and cable tv.

These whack jobs sit at home on the internet feeding their mental illness with other like minded mentally deranged individuals and other instigators. Each shooting feeds the next one. With 350 million Americans the supply of said individuals is more than adequate to continue the madness indefinitely.

Shut down the 24 hour news cycle on it. Take over the internet China style. I don't know just venting a bit and I am reminded of a quote from my Dad after 9/11 that I believe is from Benjamin Franklin.

"those who are willing to forgo essential liberty for a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety"

-- something like that.

Poor Ben never saw an AR.
Quote Reply
Re: Mass Shootings - What will it take to change the law? [MJuric] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
MJuric wrote:

Do you think banning guns will make illegal guns go away?

Do you believe the government should be able to take the right to own something away for any item if a few misuse it to cause harm to others or self?

Certain classes of weapons are banned and guess what? They are pretty much never used to commit crimes.
Quote Reply
Re: Mass Shootings - What will it take to change the law? [MJuric] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
MJuric wrote:
FishyJoe wrote:
99% of people aren't reckless drivers, but we make people register vehicles and get licensed.

Does it stop accidents or people from getting killed? No.

Does it prevent mayhem and many people from dying needlessly? Yes.


Lots of people drive without license, registration or insurance....despite the fact that it's illegal.

There are also some states that actually have no license or registration requirements and also have some of the lowest deaths per capita by firearm in the US.

What a specious argument. You’re better than that.
Quote Reply
Re: Mass Shootings - What will it take to change the law? [MJuric] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
MJuric wrote:
Do you think banning guns will make illegal guns go away?

As someone who is from Northern Mexico and has lived through all the drug wars and cartel violence I can tell you banning guns doesnt make the illegal ones go away.

2x Deca-Ironman World Cup (10 Ironmans in 10 days), 2x Quintuple Ironman World Cup (5 Ironmans in 5 days), Ultraman, Ultra Marathoner, and I once did an Ironman.
Quote Reply
Re: Mass Shootings - What will it take to change the law? [MJuric] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Would you say the current rate of dead school kids is an acceptable amount given the key constitutional rights their deaths are protecting? Is there an amount of dead school children at which we should consider changes? Or is the 2nd amendment so important to the fabric of our country that even 100x the current rate of dead school children is okay - because the 2nd amendment is what guarantees our freedom and without it we have nothing?
Quote Reply
Re: Mass Shootings - What will it take to change the law? [Kay Serrar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Kay Serrar wrote:
My memory is hazy, but didn’t Obama essentially put all his chips on getting Obamacare passed? Immigration and/or gun reform at that time simultaneously with the ACA would have been impossible.

That was exactly it, also the 60 votes in the Senate was only around less than 9 months,

In reality they wasted a bunch of time being jerked around by Republicans on the ACA. Democrats were desperate to get Republicans on board, even though they did not need them, so they wasted so much time. But Republicans were not dealing in good faith, they just wanted to gum up the works.
Quote Reply
Re: Mass Shootings - What will it take to change the law? [Kay Serrar] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Kay Serrar wrote:
307trout wrote:
Kay Serrar wrote:
307trout wrote:
runski09 wrote:
In the US, now?
Nothing. We could have 2-4 such school shootings a day for the next 3 years and the republicans would still fight tooth nail and for their lives to keep the gun laws as loose as possible. No concessions from them. Ever. Prove me wrong.


I don't think you can place it completely on Republican leadership, even though it's easy to demonize them (especially in the LR). Even without Republican leadership concessions, and specifically against their wishes, there are certain states with significant gun restrictions. It has happened. There are examples. The bottom line is that the gun control advocates simply don't have the votes across the country.


This kid, who by some initial accounts, seems to have been a little troubled, walked into a gun store upon turning 18 years old, and had no issue buying a gun. I think the majority of the population is in favor of some controls that would stop this kid being able to have done that. There is only one political party he’ll bent on stopping such measures being implemented. Stop kidding yourself.


What kind of controls exactly? Would they have helped in this case?

What are the unintended consequences to the 99.99999% of gun owners who never commit acts of violence with a firearm?

Assume that you can look at the issue with genuine interest in reform without obliterating the rights of those who don't share your view/bias.

I'd google the guy but I don't want to give the pathetic cunt the satisfaction/notoriety that he obviously sought.

The only reference to the actual gun(s) I've seen said "a handgun and possibly a rifle".


How about starting with having to be 21 to buy a gun?

And part of the problem with guns in this country is the sheer number and availability of them. Sure, most are owned by law abiding citizens, and they don’t use them to kill people, but the easy availability and large quantities of guns means our rates of gun deaths are far above those of other western countries. As Zed says about Australia, he can no longer buy an AR-15, but look at the consequences in terms of far fewer gun deaths. Or is it so important that he should be allowed to buy an AR-15 so he can shoot some tin cans at the weekend that Australians should tolerate mass shootings? Because that seems to be the crux of your argument for gun ownership here in the US.

Why the need to control the item rather than a desire to deal with the root cause? Knife deaths are three times more prevalent in Europe than firearm deaths...leading for some to call for a ban on knives.

As I've always said. You can throw a pile of weapons, military grade or otherwise into a group of responsible emotionally stable people and no one will get hurt. You can drop a plastic spork into a prison yard...and someone's going to get shanked.

The problem is not the gun, the problem is the people. Mabey, just maybe, if we spent more time on trying to prevent people from getting to the point of wanting to kill other people, guns would no longer be an issue.
Quote Reply

Prev Next