Mass shooting in Dayton Ohio - Sunday, 4 August 2019

[rambo919]

Just curious,

Of all the people owning guns in America, people owning bump-stocks, barrel Mags and the likes, How many of those people that own it actually goes on mass shootings? This is the same old argument time in and time out. If one guys owns a panel Van of which millions of other people own it. Do we now ban the Panel Van because someone used it to kill people with and making it easier as opposed to a Vespa scooter?

Now you will say: But cars have a use, it's not intended for killing, which I agree. I then ask you what defends you against a gun, and you will say a gun. Full circle and we start again. Unfortunately as long as there are guns of all calibers and fire-rates, people will need similar weapons to defend against it. Because a hand full of morons are too stupid to blow their own heads off and would rather kill 4+ people to get a statement across now voids all reason and people's rights to protect themselves from such morons?

Put differently the problem is not the gun violence, that's just a symptom. Banning guns to stop gun violence is like using painkillers to cure cancer.

 

[Pitbull]

Put differently the problem is not the gun violence, that's just a symptom. Banning guns to stop gun violence is like using painkillers to cure cancer.

Exactly my point. Unfortunately for human on earth, guns are available and will always be available. So if you ban guns, only criminals will have guns. Making the law abiding citizens powerless against the criminals. There is no way guns can be removed from society, not today, not tomorrow not ever. I do agree to stricter gun controls I have been in that corner every time this debate has come about. I am however pro freedom to own a firearm, and accessories you please given you are fit to own and use it.

 

[Unhappy438]

Exactly my point. Unfortunately for human on earth, guns are available and will always be available. So if you ban guns, only criminals will have guns. Making the law abiding citizens powerless against the criminals. There is no way guns can be removed from society, not today, not tomorrow not ever. I do agree to stricter gun controls I have been in that corner every time this debate has come about. I am however pro freedom to own a firearm, and accessories you please given you are fit to own and use it.

Well then you agree with Greg and most Americans..

Here’s the thing, most gun safety advocates want a waiting period, a national registry, proper licensing with red flag notices and a buy-back of semiauto weapons you can clip that barrel mag onto.

The 2A folk have reduced it to “they’ll take your guns”, and folk believe it...

Now ask yourself why they dont get stricter controls? Gun lobbyists is your answer.

 

[greg0205]

Just curious,

Of all the people owning guns in America, people owning bump-stocks, barrel Mags and the likes, How many of those people that own it actually goes on mass shootings? This is the same old argument time in and time out. If one guys owns a panel Van of which millions of other people own it. Do we now ban the Panel Van because someone used it to kill people with and making it easier as opposed to a Vespa scooter?

Now you will say: But cars have a use, it's not intended for killing, which I agree. I then ask you what defends you against a gun, and you will say a gun. Full circle and we start again. Unfortunately as long as there are guns of all calibers and fire-rates, people will need similar weapons to defend against it. Because a hand full of morons are too stupid to blow their own heads off and would rather kill 4+ people to get a statement across now voids all reason and people's rights to protect themselves from such morons?

We’ve done this dance in a shooting thread before... as I recall, we’re both for sensible regulation so, ‘tho you may think it, we’re not worlds apart.

In my opinion, the tightest regulation should be on semiautos. You want a AR, background check... You want an AR, proficiency test, and let’s make them ongoing... You have a licensed AR and get convicted of assault or any violent crime, bye bye AR...

Offer folk a buy-back, and for folk who don’t want to do that, licensing and proficiency mandated.

Also, let’s get those weapons details into a national database.

Any of those suggestions seem out of bounds to you?

 

[Pitbull]

Well then you agree with Greg and most Americans..



Now ask yourself why they dont get stricter controls? Gun lobbyists is your answer.

Never denied to not agree with anyone on it.

Telling people they can't own AR15s no more vs allowing people to be vetted differently for certain firearms have never even been proposed iirc. There is no flawless system and even with the stricter controls in place, people will still go of the rails and shoot shyte up. What then? Call for more restrictions? Where does it end? There is no end goal here by the Anti-Gun crowd. No matter what controls you put in place and how solid it is, people will still be, well, people and do stupid shyte.

 

[Pitbull]

We’ve done this dance in a shooting thread before... as I recall, we’re both for sensible regulation so, ‘tho you may think it, we’re not worlds apart.

In my opinion, the tightest regulation should be on semiautos. You want a AR, background check... You want an AR, proficiency test, and let’s make them ongoing... You have a licensed AR and get convicted of assault or any violent crime, bye bye AR...

Offer folk a buy-back, and for folk who don’t want to do that, licensing and proficiency mandated.

Also, let’s get those weapons details into a national database.

Any of those suggestions seem out of bounds to you?

I agree with this 100%. This is what any legal and responsible gun owner will agree too. I don't think it's too much to ask and the greatest majority of gun owners in the US will agree. You will have your die-hard I want to purchase my gun in Wallmart and walk out with it 30 minutes later crowd. But they are in the vast minority.

 

[My_King]

Never denied to not agree with anyone on it.

Telling people they can't own AR15s no more vs allowing people to be vetted differently for certain firearms have never even been proposed iirc. There is no flawless system and even with the stricter controls in place, people will still go of the rails and shoot shyte up. What then? Call for more restrictions? Where does it end? There is no end goal here by the Anti-Gun crowd. No matter what controls you put in place and how solid it is, people will still be, well, people and do stupid shyte.

One just can't win the argument. It's like you car metaphor. We know that the majority of people also can't drive. Yet they keep driving and people still get killed on our roads.
I don't see people arguing against cars. Why is there no stricter controls regarding cars?

 

[My_King]

I agree with this 100%. This is what any legal and responsible gun owner will agree too. I don't think it's too much to ask and the greatest majority of gun owners in the US will agree. You will have your die-hard I want to purchase my gun in Wallmart and walk out with it 30 minutes later crowd. But they are in the vast minority.

Jip. You can do your vetting and background checks. As long as I am no criminal and thus be allowed to get my gun within limits.

 

[Unhappy438]

Never denied to not agree with anyone on it.

Telling people they can't own AR15s no more vs allowing people to be vetted differently for certain firearms have never even been proposed iirc. There is no flawless system and even with the stricter controls in place, people will still go of the rails and shoot shyte up. What then? Call for more restrictions? Where does it end? There is no end goal here by the Anti-Gun crowd. No matter what controls you put in place and how solid it is, people will still be, well, people and do stupid shyte.

There is a large difference between major shooting incidents every day and one once every few months or even years. There are a few problems in American society but gun control and the general attitude towards guns are the second and third most important problems.

I mean they have done huge studies on the problem and they all come up with the same or similar conclusions. Of course the gun lobbyists dont like the results so the censor. The NRA is by far the biggest problem when it comes to gun violence in the US.

 

[Pitbull]

gun within limits.

This is the issue of contention and why people are so up in arms about it. Tell the people they can own what they want and give them guidelines on how they can own certain guns. Not, some random blanked statement and people needs to buy into it.

If an Farmer, who loves guns wants to buy a .50cal sniper rifle to shoot shyte 8miles away just for the laughs. He should be allowed to own it given he meets the criteria. Not just say, you can buy a gun within set limitations and it'a up to X to decide.

Have a clean and open criteria and all will be well

 

[Unhappy438]

One just can't win the argument. It's like you car metaphor. We know that the majority of people also can't drive. Yet they keep driving and people still get killed on our roads.
I don't see people arguing against cars. Why is there no stricter controls regarding cars?

You know you might have an argument if anyone could just walk into a shop buy a car and drive it out on the road. Except you cant do that so really you have done the very opposite and achieved an own goal.

 

[My_King]

Oeee I see we have a troll in our midst.

 

[Pitbull]

I mean they have done huge studies on the problem and they all come up with the same or similar conclusions. Of course the gun lobbyists dont like the results so the censor. The NRA is by far the biggest problem when it comes to gun violence in the US.

This is the problem.

You have already made up your mind and no matter what you will not be convinced otherwise. And this is the reason the NRA and the gun loving populous of the US will never back down on their current firm stance. The NRA is doing what it's suppose to do, protect the right of the people who own/loves/wants to own firearms. Nothing more nothing less.

It's like you blaming a Union for looking after the safety of their workers when they strike because of unsafe working conditions. Approach the debate with the intention of making the current system better, not making enemies before the debate even starts and keep on crying the same tune there is a mass shooting. End of the day it takes a special kind of retard to shoot up a group of people. Same as someone who blows themselves up to kill innocent people with the promise of 70 odd virgins.

You get people in this world who should probably have been aborted before birth. But alas, we're stuck with them and you can't judge Humanity on the acts of a few morons can you?

 

[greg0205]

I agree with this 100%. This is what any legal and responsible gun owner will agree too. I don't think it's too much to ask and the greatest majority of gun owners in the US will agree. You will have your die-hard I want to purchase my gun in Wallmart and walk out with it 30 minutes later crowd. But they are in the vast minority.

It’s that last bit where the discussion breaks down and why folk like me keep circling back to the NRA.

The NRA want unrestricted access, and they’re immovable on the issue.

I raised a point in the Stephen Paddock thread a while ago... think it was with Marine... at the same time Paddock was shooting up Vegas, the NRA had their shills on Capitol Hill pushing for a bill to allow the sale of armor piercing rounds... They wanted folk to have free access to cop killers.

Why the hell?

There are plenty of elected folk who just want sanity to prevail. Example, the House passed HR8 months ago... it’s been sitting on Mitch McConnell’s desk and he flat-out won’t bring it up for a vote in the Senate.

Have a read...

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/8

When a lobby has enough influence to stop *that* going to a vote, the system is broken.

 

[Pitbull]

It’s that last bit where the discussion breaks down and why folk like me keep circling back to the NRA.

The NRA want unrestricted access, and they’re immovable on the issue.

I raised a point in the Stephen Paddock thread a while ago... think it was with Marine... at the same time Paddock was shooting up Vegas, the NRA had their shills on Capitol Hill pushing for a bill to allow the sale of armor piercing rounds... They wanted folk to have free access to cop killers.

Why the hell?

There are plenty of elected folk who just want sanity to prevail. Example, the House passed HR8 months ago... it’s been sitting on Mitch McConnell’s desk and he flat-out won’t bring it up for a vote in the Senate.

Have a read...

https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/8

When a lobby has enough influence to stop *that* going to a vote, the system is broken.

Again, this boils down to what you need to protect yourself against. If you can buy body armor and you can take your body armor and shoot up a church, I should be able to defend myself against such an attack. I don't see the need for armor piercing bullets, however in SA we have one of the strictest gun control policies I know of globally and even we can buy armor piercing rounds.

Again, the problem is with the control on these type of "accessories" not the banning of them. Why if I have a clean credit/criminal record, a record of owning several guns for an extended period of time and even after interviewing my friends and family to ascertain if I can have a fire-arm should I not be allowed to own armor piercing bullets?

 

[greg0205]

Again, this boils down to what you need to protect yourself against. If you can buy body armor and you can take your body armor and shoot up a church, I should be able to defend myself against such an attack. I don't see the need for armor piercing bullets, however in SA we have one of the strictest gun control policies I know of globally and even we can buy armor piercing rounds.

Again, the problem is with the control on these type of "accessories" not the banning of them. Why if I have a clean credit/criminal record, a record of owning several guns for an extended period of time and even after interviewing my friends and family to ascertain if I can have a fire-arm should I not be allowed to own armor piercing bullets?

Unless you’re carrying an AR slung and ready ready to go, bugging out is still your best option.

Also, hitting folk who aren’t the shooter.

Also, good luck with LE while you’re firing a semiauto in an active shooter situation.


And no, I don’t think that kind of mini arms race makes sense at all... they bring kevlar, you bring armor piercing, they bring a grenade launcher... where’s it end?

 

[rambo919]

Again, this boils down to what you need to protect yourself against. If you can buy body armor and you can take your body armor and shoot up a church, I should be able to defend myself against such an attack. I don't see the need for armor piercing bullets, however in SA we have one of the strictest gun control policies I know of globally and even we can buy armor piercing rounds.

Again, the problem is with the control on these type of "accessories" not the banning of them. Why if I have a clean credit/criminal record, a record of owning several guns for an extended period of time and even after interviewing my friends and family to ascertain if I can have a fire-arm should I not be allowed to own armor piercing bullets?

That's because here the criminals can get vests.... it's a MAD type problem no matter what you do or where you are. The literal or legal barriers are stop-gag's at best sometimes.

 

[Pitbull]

where’s it end?

There are current civilian "ceilings" in what can and cannot be owned and certain special licenses (permits) to have certain weapons.

If you don't want Armor piercing bullets, don't allow the sale of bullet proof vests to non-protection officers. That again steps on other things by limiting someone's right to protect themselves in a non-lethal way. So there is a discrepancy. But that is my own personal view on it.

Asking a person with a 9mm to defend himself against attackers with AK47s and R5 rifles in SA is a very tall ask. Why should anyone be in a situation where they can't defend themselves adequately.

 

[rambo919]

Unless you’re carrying an AR slung and ready ready to go, bugging out is still your best option.

Also, hitting folk who aren’t the shooter.

Also, good luck with LE while you’re firing a semiauto in an active shooter situation.


And no, I don’t think that kind of mini arms race makes sense at all... they bring kevlar, you bring armor piercing, they bring a grenade launcher... where’s it end?

It did not work with nukes either, it's simply a temporary measure in the absense of a better solution.

 

[SlinkyMike]

The gun debate is a deflection. Can we talk about the POTUS stochastic terrorism yet?