Total posts: 3,383
-->
@dustryder
I don't care about weapons with pistol grips. Consequently, I've never said I wished to ban weapons with pistol grips and I have no idea why you've chosen this topic to be stupid about. The grip of a gun is ultimately immaterial to the functionality of a gun I assume. And we've been over this before:
Are you purposefully being this dense? Pistol grip is one of the things that makes an "assault weapon" an assault weapon, you don't really seem to know what you are even talking about lol It's one of the characteristics on the wiki lol wow
but your speech shows that you simply don't care enough when it comes to actions needed.
oohhh you mean all the things I listed isn't want is needed but your one idea of a ban is, gotcha.
correlation is not evidence it's conjecture, you have NO evidence, just hypothesis.
I've repeatedly said felons and criminals shouldn't have guns, laws regarding anything related should be consistently enforced with increased punishments, that's gun control, controlling criminals not getting guns and severely punishing them when they do, or anyone who commits a crime with a gun.
But do all semi-automatic weapons have the same clip size, reloading speed and shooting speed?
yes, the fact you don't know this is very telling on your level of understanding about guns.
you think you just walk into a gun shop and buy a gun? LOL have you ever filled out the background check paper work required? Do you know what goes on behind the scenes with that whole process?
you say those weapons can still be purchased but have to be registered (like that's going to be useful) of the mass shootings with whatever you think is an assault weapon, how many of those were obtained illegally and that this purchased/registration idea would have stopped.......not many
notice is says "more than" because it's probably closer to 95%
now added in the others where the screw up was the government's fault and there's probably 1 maybe 2 that actually got them on the black market?
The 26-year-old passed required background checks because the Air Force never informed the FBI about his criminal conductand you want people to believe a ban would work?
what new laws would "make it difficult to acquire banned objects."
you said several times they could still be purchased and registered, which doesn't actually sound like a ban, but then again it's not clear what the "assault weapon" definition is since you say the cosmetics aren't important (and I agree) yet New York assault weapons ban defines those guns as having 2 or more of those cosmetics. This is why I have asked for YOUR definition of an "assault weapon" but you evade that giving a mention to the wiki without even a link.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
How do you expect to be taken seriously when you so dishonestly take a quote out of context?
I've asked you many times for specifics, you said the wiki, it's hard to take you seriously when you are so vague and evasive. The wiki IS the context you referenced and I quoted, nothing dishonest about it. That was the answer I got when I asked you what an assault weapon was.
I've asked you the same questions many times that you ignore
what difference does a pistol grip on a rifle make? you think this is science some how so what's the science say about pistol grips and other cosmetics?I have no idea. Why is this relevant?
keep being evasive, if you can't keep up with what you say that's your short coming.
you want to ban weapons with pistol grips etc but can't give any logical reason why other than it makes a gun look scary, your emotions control your judgement and that's why you fail on logic and constantly ignore my logic tests to you.
LOL you are such a hypocrite. I've stated multiple times I care about all murders, you are selectively outraged about mass shootings, talk about dishonest, either you care about people being murder or your don't. You clearly don't but only as much as it supports your desire for gun bans, otherwise those single and non gun murders are irrelevant to you.
anyway this is pointless due to you now answering simple questions, trying to evade and unable to make any logic reasoning for the things I ask, your only evidence is the ban and talk about mass murders though the over all number of murders is so much higher than mass murders, it's pretty sick selective outrage when you only want to address the rare mass murders instead of all murders.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
It's not really a problem. The wikipedia definition of assault weapons seems reasonable. Extend this definition to include other firearms not commonly described as assault weapons, but have multiple features in common with assault weapons. Ensure that there is input from multiple experts to ensure that this list is both exhaustive and reasonable. Finally, ensure that this definition is adaptable for the removal and addition of gun.
yep wiki "The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions" solid definition to be sure lol
I've asked you the same questions many times that you ignore
what difference does a pistol grip on a rifle make? you think this is science some how so what's the science say about pistol grips and other cosmetics?
you are actually talking about a gun ban, basically doing away with the 2a again from the wiki " the term assault weapon refers primarily to semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns that are able to accept detachable magazines and possess one or more other features."
show me how the scientist have proven how many mass shootings the ban stopped.
then show me how mass shootings happened because there was no ban.
then I want to know how someone with a registered gun is prevented from committing a mass shooting.
And even if we were to dismiss this as a case of correlation does not imply causation. it doesn't mean it should be dismissed.
perhaps, but we shouldn't act on it as if it is fact either which is the point to this "theory" it has not been proven thus our disagreement. Laws shouldn't be made on no evidence theories. I get you don't understand the freedoms the U.S. has and with that comes some negatives just like everything in life. In theory hateful speech is harmful (whatever that means) but censoring speech, compelled speech isn't constitutional but something you have to accept in a free society. Often those in a gilded cage don't realize they are still in a cage, think about that for a moment, that's the problem when people who don't understand and appreciate the concept of freedom with regards to living in and being a citizen of the U.S.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
#1 machine guns are very expensive
#2 criminals don't listen to what you tell them not to do, like break laws.
how many domestic abuse cases end in murder? what's the %? of those that do, how many of those was the person already a felon who can't legally have a gun?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
the "solutions" are so impractical and absurd anyway, Solyndra, selective memory is a wonderful thing.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I have yet to hear a logical argument as to how taking guns away and or banning certain ones from lawful citizens will remove them from the hands of criminals. There's already a 'ban' on felons from possessing guns, drugs etc
if you look at the murder rates by race, if you aren't white or black you are extremely safe, because each one tends to kill their own. Another stat ignored for any possible clues to a solution.
and for you clueless people following along
how do any of the following make a gun more dangerous
pistol grip
barrel shroud
folding stock
flash supressor
thumb hole stock
why are silencers and short barreled rifles class 3? that's a question for people who know the difference between reality and tv fantasy.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
Well I'm specifically interested in reducing the amount of mass shootings and mass shooting deaths so1. Create an exhaustive list of firearms and features deemed as assault weapons. If the Clinton list wasn't sufficient, then I'd add onto that list. I'd also close up the "cosmetic feature" loophole or whatever2. Ban the manufacture, import and public selling of firearms on the list3. Implement an amnesty period with a voluntary federal buy-back program at above market value4. Register all kept assault weapons with the appropriate authorities5. Unregistered assault weapons that are discovered after the amnesty period are immediately destroyed. Likewise for registered assault weapons that are used in a crime6. Assault weapons must be stored in a place that cannot be readily accessed by people other than the owner or who they permit. (ie a gun safe)Let me ask you in turn. You've claimed that people are the problem. What are your solutions/policies for the people?
that's the problem isn't it, what's the definition of an assault weapon? It's actually a full auto machine gun which are already heavily regulated and extremely expensive. This is what happens when people use abstract words and are free and loose with definitions. What's the cosmetic feature loop hole?
2,4 makes the 2a null and void
so you'd send people with guns to take by force including at gun point, lethal force to take these registered guns or ones not turned in but discovered some how and then put those people in jail for whatever time period. Having an illegal gun is a felony and probably a 10 sentence. Starting to sound like nazi Germany.
all firearms are sold with trigger locks fyi
You don't think people are the problem? Do you think a normal average people are murderers or mass murderers? What kind of mental state do you think it takes to be a murderer, normal? abnormal/disturbed? Do you think anyone in their sane mind would murder another generally speaking? Of the mass murderers how many would you consider sane and normal? I'm not talking about insanity defense which is something different.
What % of mass murders are planned out rather than heat of the moment actions? I'd say about 100%. Do normal sane people plan out mass murders? I don't think so, but if you do please explain.
solutions talked about but not really implemented, this could also help all violent crimes
mental health improvements, early detection of at risk children
Establish a culture of gun safety.
Impulsive anger: Explore the linkages between anger and gun violence.
Economic development: Reduce concentrated disadvantage and invest in employment opportunities.
Advance gun safety and self-defense technology.
consistent enforcement of current laws and punishments
I agree with this too
First: America has a moral problem.
Second: America has a violence problem.
Third: America has an Isolation problem.
there's a lot more things as well but it's very difficult to keep guns away from those who shouldn't have them if we don't enforce laws, that's one of the first steps as evidenced by the felons failing the background check and a never prosecuted for it.
We've already established that it wasn't pointless and had promising preliminary results. You just don't like what the preliminary results entail.
I presented the stats to you using your links, they speak for themselves you choose not to listen.
With regards to the ban Correlation does not imply causation it's logical fallacy.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
it was/is pointless, repealing the 2a would keep the guns out of law abiding citizen's hands, because as I have stated criminals don't follow laws, that's what makes them criminals. Then there's the black market that will expand at a huge rate, diy guns, 3d printers. Many drugs are illegal, yes? Does that stop people from dying from them? No.
In 2017, there were 70,237 drug overdose deaths in the United States.
think of something illegal where you live, now how difficult would it be for you to get if it you really wanted it?
so which one kills more people overdoses or guns? not even close is it, yet the war on drugs has been a huge failure imo. Are drugs the problem? Do they creep into people's homes and while they are sleeping get into their bodies? Or is it the people who use drugs are the problem? Same point for guns.
you didn't answer this the first time so I'll ask again
what are the specifics of this ban you propose, how would that work?
stop manufacturing or importing ak-47s and wait for those already in circulation rust or break, would take 1000 years or more.
What about those already owned by people? Would you send people with guns to their homes to confiscate their ak-47s? What if they won't give them up? Would you be ok for those people with guns you've sent to use their guns? How long should people be put in prison for not surrendering their ak-47s?
Trying to stop gun violence with gun violence doesn't seem logical to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
excellent points, the time and money wasted arguing, convincing and studying could have been spend on cleaning up the air and water, but it's not really about that, it's about manipulation imo.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
I mean.. are you arguing that assault weapons cannot kill people at a faster rate than weapons that aren't classed as assault weapons? Ultimately that's what I'm interested in and not the aesthetics.
what guns fell under the ban were no different than the ones that could still be purchased except for cosmetic features, like pistol grips, folding stocks, barrel shrouds etc The state of NY has done the same thing. As I said an ar-15 is the same as a ruger mini 14 except for cosmetics mostly, they are both semi auto, magazine fed and shoot the exact same round. I don't want to convince you so I'd rather you look this stuff up on your own and come to your own conclusion if what I say is accurate, if you don't think it is please ask and I'll try to clarify.
the Ruger 10/22 is a .22 rimfire rifle, not considered 'high powered' but can still kill, look at up and all the after market stocks you can drop it into, the actual trigger, barrel etc all the same, just different cosmetics. then you'll see what i'm talking about
Created:
-->
@Alec
@dustryder
as to the issue oh which is most effective, that's a personal choice for the most part but here's some things to consider.
handguns are much cheaper, easier to conceal, weigh less, you can get 30 round, even 50 round magazines for some handguns
AR-15 is very, very loud which has several benefits, it alters any other bad guys you are armed and or the neighbors that something is going on, it's a very good deterrent. It is heavier, but easier to mount accessories like flashlights and sights on. You could potentially shoot through barriers and hit the bad guy, far better than a pistol round.
probably the best of both worlds would be a pistol round carbine like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KRISS_Vector or a pistol caliber bullpup keep in mind as scary as those look they shoot the exact same rounds as handguns.
Created:
-->
@Alec
this issue obviously isn't about saving lives and it's not about guns, it's about control, when someone says "gun control" they are actually talking about people control, or just control. Of all the ways to prevent death, most are ignored. What happened to tackling mental health and suicides? I mean don't we want to help people stay live? Guess not.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
I think it's important to note why assault weapons were targeted. It's because they have the most opportunity to kill as many people as possible.
countless videos prove that is not correct, they are targeted because the look scary, when present with a mini 14, most people say those are ok and yet they are the same except for the cosmetics.
here watch this and you'll get a better idea of where I'm coming from and why https://youtu.be/L5CxUZp5VZA
should this be banned? if so why? ok fine I won't do the gotcha thing again, it's a pellet gun, not even a fire arm, but sure does look scary am I right?
look up a bullet comparison chart, an AR-15 is a .223 and an Ak-47 is 7.62x39 popular hunting rounds are a .308, 30-30 and 30-06, also check out a 12 gauge shot gun slug and 00 buck shot.
ALL semi autos work the same way, pistols, rifles, shotguns it doesn't matter the mechanics are the same.
the study you present specifically talks about fatalities, with more trauma centers, better technology in medicine etc the chances of survival is much higher in the time period of the ban vs the time prior to it. Regardless if it had any effect during that time period, the time frame of a 7 year stretch were the rate was lower than the lowest year of the ban proves it isn't need any longer, at the very least. If you look at the time periods there's something else going on that no one wants to see otherwise after the ban expired the rate should have gone up. Years after it expired the rate was at all time lows but no one want to look at that or see why. When the rate was the lowest how come it wasn't studied to see what was working and what was going right so they could do more of that? Why not reflect back to those years to learn why the rates where so low compared to rest? Wouldn't that be far more productive than to talk of bans again? The rates speak for themselves, why ignore them?
Created:
-->
@Alec
there was a drop, but no one can say from what or why because it happened before the
again the ban does not show what you think, you can't know those reduction numbers wouldn't have been achieved without the ban, I'm sure other programs where in play to reduce crime as well. Look at see how NYC did it, it was called something like "broken windows" NYC at one time was the crime capital of the U.S. and they turned it around big time, but not with bans.
How many murders happen with an ak-47?
tobacco kills, what 10x or more people per year than firearms? no one ever talks about banning that and tobacco isn't a right? why don't we care about all those people who die from that?
this ban idea doesn't really pass the logic test does it.
Created:
-->
@Alec
Isn't protection a basic human right?
a right that you can't exercise is no right at all. what good is a right to protect your life if you don't have the means?
Created:
-->
@dustryder
Tell me how you or anyone could possibly know the number of mass shootings with an "assault rifle" wouldn't have gone down anyway w/o any ban at all? The numbers fluctuate greatly when comparing certain years.
If we further break down the years both Mother Jones and the Washington Postuse, the statistics remain similar. From 1982 to 1994 (12 years), there were 19 shootings, an average of 1.5 shootings a year.
From September 1994 to September 2004—the duration of the Assault Weapons Ban—there were 15 mass shootings over 10 years; again, an average of 1.5 a year.
From September 1994 to September 2004—the duration of the Assault Weapons Ban—there were 15 mass shootings over 10 years; again, an average of 1.5 a year.
how many of the mass murders were actually committed by someone using an assault rifle, funny can't seem to find the actual specifics, they claim mass murders may have gone down, but don't specifically say mass murders by assault rifle. Can you find actual specifics as to what weapon was used, because I can't.
Created:
-->
@Alec
in general murder rates have been going down for a while now, consistently so there wasn't like a huge decrease at any time after the ban, hence no effect could be shown, same was true in Australia.
don't be fooled by the deaths per 100k, look at the total numbers. if the number killed stays the same but the population increases or the actual number goes up a little, the rate make look lower as a % yet more people are actually being murdered. You have to be very careful with the creative way people manipulate statics.
Also stick with stats right from the FBI website.
California which has some of the strict/dumbest gun laws has the most murder deaths
but we'll use your link for comparison, the ban expired in 2004 so at that point it had been in effect for 10 years and the rate should be about the lowest then if the ban had any effect, then after it expired it should have gone back up right? But what do the numbers say?
2004 total murders 16,148
then they went up a little bit but starting in 2009-2014 the rate was less than and year the ban was in effect 1994-2004, how could that be? 2015 rate was lower than most years of the ban, 2016 and 2017 were a little bit higher. So what's that really say about the ban?
if you like the number of murders per 100k
in 2004 it was 5.5
2014 4.4
ten years later it dropped that much AFTER the ban expired.....interesting don't you think?
2017 5.3
and that's after the spike in sales while the greatest gun salesman was in office for 8 years (Obama if you didn't know) sales skyrocketed when he talked about bans etc which mean more guns in the civilian population, yet the rate is still lower than 2004
the first 5 years of the ban, the average was 7.54
the lowest rate during the ban was 5.5
2008-2015 the rate was UNDER 5.0, for 7 years with no ban the rate was lower than the best years (2 years of 5.5 2000 and 2004) during the ban.
let me what you think of the ban now and why
why were the actual number so low in the 1960s?
look at the number for other violent crimes, they have been going down as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
Pot tax revenue was nearly 50% lower than initial projections in California's first year of recreational weed sales.
if it's going to be legal then it should be like Vermont which doesn't allow retail sales, the government should stay out. Again I would refer you back to youtube to learn how to grow marijuana hydroponically in your own home tax free :)
Tide Pod Challenge
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
naw the economic projections where half of what they thought. There's far more to the stigma. Many employers do drug testing. Then there's insurance issues. The unintended consequences haven't been thoroughly thought out yet and it's moving way too fast imo. people aren't as smart or responsible as you think, youtube is a clear indication of that, tide pods anyone?
Created:
-->
@Alec
you must understand the history and why it is a right, but a right you can loose if you are reckless like the example you gave. I refer you back to the post I made about all the felons who tried to buy a gun illegally, because they aren't allowed to, through the NICS check and how many were actually prosecuted.
We have many laws that could and should be better enforced and stiffer punishments. Wouldn't that be a good place to start?
Created:
look, this has been tried and it did NOTHING!!!!!
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB), officially the Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, is a subsection of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a United States federal law, which included a prohibition on the manufacture for civilian use of certain semi-automatic firearms that were defined as assault weapons as well as certain ammunition magazines that were defined as "large capacity."
study, by the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania, found no significant evidence that either the assault weapons ban or the ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds had reduced gun murders.
In 2003, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services, an independent, non-federal task force, examined an assortment of firearms laws, including the AWB, and found "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence."[33] A review of firearms research from 2001 by the National Research Council "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence outcomes." The committee noted that guns were relatively rarely used criminally before the ban and that its maximum potential effect on gun violence outcomes would likely be very small.[34]
even the CDC studied it and can you guess what they concluded?????
Regardless this still doesn't stop CRIMINALS they don't care about laws.
I take that back, the ban did do something, especially when Obama wanted to do it again, it created a huge demand for them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
it's not actually, because they can set possession limits and have more control over it if they keep it "illegal" California got half of the projected taxes they thought they would get when they legalized it. It's a farce by the reality of what actually has happened. This economic boom from legalization never happened. I'm fine with it being a control substance for legitimate medical conditions. The really issue is people aren't responsible and it's very difficult to hold individual accountable. Children haven't died that I know of but have over dosed on the edibles. If someone wants to be self destructive that's fine, i don't really care so long as it doesn't impact me or anyone I care about.
Created:
-->
@Alec
imo the approach to this subject should be, why is it anyone else's business what I own? There is no "needs" test for firearms, if there was it wouldn't be a right. I don't need permission to protect my life or someone else's, but depending on what happens I may have justify the outcome. This goes along very well the freedom of speech which only the U.S. has. Those who haven't lived it can't really understand it. This is why other countries can make hate speech laws and similar, compelled speech, but that can't happen in the U.S.
We can get into the weeds about tactical advantage of (insert gun here) but that is really a different thing than the suggestion that banning AK47's would somehow have some statistical difference in the murder rate. Personally I'd rather have an AK74 or some kind of bullpup, but that's a different topic.
the ignorance of singling out AR-15s is just that ignorant, since the .223 has many different platform options included in the mini-14 which usually has a wooden stock but in all practical purposes is the same as the AR-15, there just really cosmetic differences. Look up some videos on comparisons between the AR-15 and AR-10, that will help you really understand their ignorance about guns. Oh and there are AR-15 and AK-47 pistols so....there's that.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
I take them at their words, I don't have to prove anything, there is no way to show the ban had any effect. There is no proof of correlation, so to use Australia as an example that gun bans work can't be proven.
"almost never" lol good one.
Created:
Posted in:
Greenpeace co-founder tears into Ocasio-Cortez, Green New Deal: ‘Pompous little twit’
as he said if climate change is settled why do they continue to study it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
there's a difference between legal and decriminalized, in general you shouldn't be put in jail for it, though I don't think it should be legal necessarily.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Even if the USA were to have 10 times the current amount of mass shootings, it would not justify repealing the 2nd A.
that's because it's a murder, societal problem, not a gun problem
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
that's been debunked so many times
even by their own government and creators of the ban, try reading the facts they themselves admit they can't prove it had any effect on the murder rate, which was very low to begin with and trending down.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
I give no credibility to other countries because there is no logical comparison. The U.S. doesn't have hate speech laws because freedom of speech is a fundamental right protected, and other rights which other countries don't have, by the U.S. constitution and bill of rights, as one of many examples of differences.
It doesn't seem you are looking at the big picture. Yearly murders is my priority. One mass shooting of 50 is less important to me than 1000 murders per year. This concern or outrage of single rare events boggles the mind when far more 1 and 2 murders add up to so much more per year than these anomalies as you put it.
This term "mass shooting" is a scare tactic which should be obvious. Recently this crazy man killed is pregnant wife and his 2 children, so 4 people, mass murder? Not really since they were all related and it was contained to that one instance and family. He didn't use a gun, don't you want to stop nuts like that? I do.
Reducing the amount of guns reduces the amount of gun deaths which is almost equally as admirable.
Reducing the amount of murders is admirable, focusing on how someone is murdered is far from admirable. And you are specifically talking about mass shootings. You can have a mass murder but without it being a mass shooting.
How do you propose to do that? A house to house search and confiscation by people WITH guns? How do you stop the black market given the videos I posted and 3d printing? If getting rid of guns is so easy why can't they get them away from criminals? How many illegal guns are on the streets? No one could possibly know. If all manufacturing stopped today, how long would it take for all the guns to eventually break and or be taken away from criminals? few thousand years? maybe more?
What about the police and military? their guns get stolen, what do you do about that? How do you stop guns coming in over the Mexican border?
in the U.S. Blacks commit half or more of the crimes yet are less than half the population, how about they can't have guns, you ok with that? that would greatly reduce the number of murders, maybe it's not the gun after all?
yes I'm be facetious
this actually surprised me total 43%
Single victim/unknown offender or offenders31.2%
Single victim/multiple offenders
11.8%
if you didn't watch or understand the video of the murders per 100k it explains that if you actually look at the specific data, murders are mostly narrowed to a small number of counties in the U.S. This is why general sweeping idea such as yours are illogical. If you want to address murders look and where they are happening, that seems to be a pretty painfully obvious first step, and yet that doesn't really happen.
Chicago has been the poster city for murders, in fact they keep weekend totals. What's been tried to address that? They did have a ban which didn't help, but that's pretty much it.
You seemed to selectively ignore facts like the assault weapons ban did nothing to affect crime rates or that people are murdered by other ways than guns.
It doesn't appear we have any real common ground. While I want solutions to stop murders, you seem to have tunnel vision for "mass gun murders" which makes no sense at all to me.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
However it's ignorant to avoid the fact that without guns in the first place, mass shootings cannot take place.
well you can't put the genie back in the bottle and there's no way to rid the world of guns. Let's not forget the terrorist who used full autos in countries where guns are all but banned.
Tunisia beach attack
Carcassonne and Trèbes attack
Carcassonne and Trèbes attack
If you look at Australia for example, they just don't want to kill each other as much as other countries, so they don't as often. Even before their gun ban they never had what could really be considered a murder problem.
it seems you are trying to ice skate up hill. aren't there other things that can be address that most if not all could agree upon that shouldn't be the prime focus?
I can't find it atm, but I read an article that basically said if people were taught how to deal with conflicts correctly that would greatly reduce murder and violence. Consider the road rage encounters, look on youtube even, some pull guns and even shoot, over road rage, that's not normal behavior. Neither is beating someone up because of a hat they are wearing, but there we are, this is the new norm. How can you possibly expect anything to change if that kind of behavior doesn't? Life has no value, neither to manners, compassion or empathy. That is your answer, but one that will never happen.
You do understand all this will be moot once 3d printed guns become main stream right? You do know someone 3d printed a metal gun right? While it's not cost effective right now, someday it will be.
here watch this now imagine what a machinist with a machine shop could do.
or maybe you like to build things by hand?
what do you consider "easy access" to guns? Do you know who's gun Kate Steinle was killed with?
Created:
-->
@dustryder
what is the over all point? that the % is incredibly small compared to handguns, knives, other bludgeons, hands and feet? then yeah maybe, don't say it if you don't mean it, it's like crying wolf :)
how about we focus on the how and why people kill and try to address that, rather than the means they use?
you don't really want to ban ak-47s you don't want people to kill each other right? I mean what ever method is used, that's pretty irrelevant to the dead and loved ones of.
I don't want people to kill each other or commit violence against one another. Perhaps we can do a better job to minimize those behaviors. How come we don't focus on that? If people didn't kill each other or I should say innocent people we wouldn't need to even have a ban conservation.
Created:
-->
@dustryder
Me, I can just point to the multiple mass shootings in which an AK-47 was used.
please do so, because I don't believe that is true.....at all.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
a wall, like any security measure or law is a deterrent, I can't possibly put it any more plainly. People should be deterred from breaking laws if laws are to mean anything.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
You brought it up first. You said the gang problem was just in Mexico etc, I mentioned it because that wasn't true.
Created:
-->
@Alec
70% of robberies are over in around 7 minutes. The average time it takes the police to get to your house is 11 minutes. The police can be used after the robbery to catch the criminal but immediate defense is best reserved for the individual.
well said, if you look at crime stats by state counties it's very surprising imo, even some of the states with high crime rates have counties with extremely low crime rates. Population density has a lot do to with it I'm sure, firearm ownership, not so much.
Created:
-->
@Alec
when there's a bad guy with and kind of weapon, or no weapon, whom do you call? A good guy with a gun aka police. When seconds count the police are only minutes away.
There's a lot of truth in those statements often used, for those who are honest about the issue.
banks, shopping malls, lots of places are protected by people with guns, pepper spray and or tasers, not so much schools. Seems a bit odd that the democrats favor late term abortion and no armed teachers, seems related to me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Alec
good point, though from what I have heard in the past etc Quebec is pretty socially tight as a state/region whatever. They are kind of their own entity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
he didn't get your sarcasm but I did lol. Quebec imo has unintentionally immunized itself from "refugees" settling there by maintaining their own language etc.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
the irony is I would probably be considered "liberal" in the old sense of the word, but since that no longer exists I'm conservative. Though it does depend on the subject.
I do like Ben Sharpio and Dinesh D'Souza, oh and Jordan Peterson :)
Created:
-->
@Vader
@dustryder
They would threaten a student if they do not send pictures by shooting them or pointing a gun. Teachers kill their students sometimes, and I bet you can look up an article about it
isn't there laws against that? how do you ensure and enforce those laws? Sex with students has been in the news a lot last couple of years, female teachers at that, how do you prevent it? Ban schools and make homeschooling mandatory?
Are the positive uses of AR-15s/AK-47s a common enough occurence to justify the negative uses of them?
shall not be infringed, I don't think you fully understand what the 2A is and what it means.
more children are killed in swimming pools than by a rifle of any kind, swimming isn't mandatory, pools are legal, neither is in the Constitution or Bill of Rights.
A .308 is very close to what an AK-47 fires, .308 is a popular hunting round. The irony here is those who judge things by how they look rather than function out of ignorance, would be the same condemning others who judge people by how they look. It's pretty funny if you think about it.
I'd suggest you research the "assault weapons" ban by Bill Clinton and see what the outcome of that was, since it was tracked and studied.
Created:
-->
@Vader
Non lethal bullets and or pepper spray guns should have been a thing long ago, why do you think it wasn't? I think there's one school in Texas that has had them, just one.
Extensive training would be required regardless. If you are worried about psyco teachers then that's a whole problem of it self.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
you attribute motive to what I say constantly
you are attempting to scare xenophobic people into supporting a wall.
Let's look at a military base, not sure if you've every bee on one, but they use barrier to funnel people to their entrances. Does that mean it's 100% effective? Of course not, but it doesn't necessarily have to be. A physical barrier can make it more difficult and or make people find alternative ways, like you said fly, tunnels etc. If you can reduce the amount of patrols and resources to patrol the wide open spaces or easy to cross, then you can focus more on all those other ways you described.
All the solutions I would like to see would involve pages and pages of writing, which i'm not really interested in doing. The ideal ideas would be to make border security as efficient as possible, which is not limited to just a physical barrier. Like most things it's all about cost/benefit, risk vs reward for the would be illegal. Planes are expensive, especially if now they need more. If you've every played any kind of military style miniatures game (warhammer 40k etc) you try to funnel the enemy where you want them to go. Same basic idea. An effective barrier can also work by slowing down, or making it difficult enough that patrols can get there to apprehend them.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
that's good to hear, that's how it should be. I've tracked prices for a while, since before the greatest gun sales man was elected. Now under Trump who isn't threatening more laws etc the prices are way down, especially with ammo. Why? because no one is buying. For example 22 ammo is now 0.03 cents per round. During Obama it was .10 cents or more IF you could even find any to purchase. Yet they have learned from the past. It will happen again once Democrats really push for more useless laws.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
Feel free to jump ship at any point. Perhaps you didn't realize that this is a debate website.
MS-13 gang isn't a broad brush, but rather specific, and we should stop more of them from coming in, which is staying on topic of border security, what we should do with the illegals already in the country is a different subject. Proactive vs reactive.
I accuse people who can't follow along and make shit up, yeah, I do that.
you accused me and or made unfounded assumptions which I have plainly pointed out, that is not disagreement, not even a nice try, try harder.
perhaps you've forgotten what the topic is, and what hijacking a thread is?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
you are making the claim that more laws reduce murder, you have proven nothing, because it can't be proven, I don't have to prove anything, the burden is yours.
which laws stop massing shootings?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
the people running the government don't even know what agency does what, yet they always want to create more, or in this case abolish one. They only want enough let in to keep enough poor people to vote them into office with the empty and unrealistic promises of free everything. When you look at many of these 'leader' net worth it makes one wonder (or should) how do so many become so wealthy from years of "public service" Consider the ones smart enough to stay out of the spot light and rake in the cash, pretty much going unnoticed. This is why the likes of Crazy Maxine and Pelosi are kept around, to keep the focus on those buffoons and not on others. If I were a puppet master I couldn't ask for better ones than some of the high profile mouth pieces.
If the economy does so well, costs so low etc the promises of free stuff pale in comparison of freedom and less government intrusion and control of their lives.
Trump offered to provide people an opportunity to be self sufficient, independent and less government involvement in their lives.
Democrats offer free stuff which they could never provide and want to dictate what words we can use, whom we have to do business with and remove a lot of other choices.
the better off and more empowered citizens feel, the more they need the poor which must be imported to tilt the scale in their favor.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Well 70 more years of the status quo where border patrol doesn't get the tools they ask for is just wasting resources. Either give them the tools they need, or pull them out and teach them to code.
if it only saves one life, one child...oh wait we don't care about the brown or foreign ones, my bad, they can die of disease, dehydration, be trafficked etc just DON'T let them get shot, because that is where they draw the line.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
But I generally don't rush to jump ship when someone asks me to explain something simple.
assumptions and accusation are not questions.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
This first link is literally the one I am responding to.
from this
"is anyone saying that any barrier is a stand alone option and doesn't need patrolling plus other security methods?
who's saying the wall is a perfect solution?"
then you somehow deduce...
I believe you are.This second link is a rant about super scary CRIMINALS!!!!!
"MS-13 members enter the U.S. illegally, which proves gang violence isn't only a problem in Mexico, so again that is untrue."
this is a rant in your mind? are you off your meds? perhaps you need some if you think that is a rant. Is that statement untrue, nope sure isn't.
Sounds like "foreigners are evil" and "build that wall".
do the voices in your head tell you that? you somehow deduced that from me saying "Walls work that's why they are used in prisons, mansions and other places that people want protected."
if you'd like to discuss border solutions I'd be happy to do that in it's own thread and would probably be very interesting.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
awesome pun btw
the way government "works" needs to change, what should happen is both parties agree how much should be spent on border security, since they both agree it's a problem and more security is needed. Divide that amount in half and use it as you wish, which could include cost sharing, combining etc. After a while the effectiveness or lack of will be evident, or perhaps that both ideas had a synergistic effect. This all or nothing, or if you want this you have to give me that is ruining the country imo.
Created: