Lawsuits against the companies that make assault rifles.

[Grau]

Again, you have lame arguments...
We have autopsy photographs of what a 5.56mm round from an AR-15 does when it hits a preschooler.

We win.

Apparently, there are few things that titillate the gun ban crowd more than mutilated, dead children.

Otherwise why trot out a "preschooler" unless you're relying on melodrama to score emotional points?

The same " what about the little children" line is popular among gun banners because it relies on emotional "feelings" rather than rational thought.

America's violence problem is not going to be solved by going on "feelings" but by the use of objective and rational thought.

Since I was in Laos during the Vietnam War, I am intimately familiar with what modern munitions, napalm, explosives etc do to human tissue.

If you have ever spent time on the burn unit at any of the larger V.A. Hospitals you might argue that death by fire is worse than gunshot but the objective of the gun ban crowd is not to save lives, it is to ban inanimate objects while the violence rages on.

For example, gun banners in NYC succeeded in making it impossible for one determined killer to immediately find a gun to kill his ex girlfriend.

Did the absence of a gun make him give up, go home and watch TV instead?

No, he simply did what others have done when firearms are difficult to find.

He bought one dollar's worth of gasoline, some plastic and made a crude but very deadly WMD that killed 86 people plus the ex girlfriend.

That's many more agonizing deaths than any mass shooting in America in which any type of "assault weapon" was used.

If gun banners really cared about child deaths other than for their exploitation value, they may want to look at the deadliest school mass killing.

The reason that they don't is because it, too, was not done with any sort of "assault weapon" but with another crude but deadly homemade WMD that killed 44 people.

Because determined killers will always find a way to kill a large number of people, America must find a way to reduce the violence that drives all killings.
To accomplish that, Americans must be willing to do more than pass additional feel-good-do-nothing gun laws.

No one wants to pay more in taxes but, by the same token, nothing worth while is either cheap or easy.
Finally, the only way to reduce America's homicide rate is to make our mental health care much more affordable and accessible to all Americans in crisis.

No one wins as long as there are still individuals who remain unable to grasp the simple reality that criminals, by definition, do not obey laws.

Thanks,





(1). "Happy Land fire"

Happy Land fire - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

EXCERPT "González went to an Amoco gas station, then returned to the establishment with a plastic container with $1 worth of gasoline.[2][4] He spread the fuel at the base of a staircase, the only access into the club, and then ignited the gasoline.[5]

Eighty-seven people died in the resulting fire."CONTINUED


2). "The 1927 Bombing That Remains America’s Deadliest School Massacre"

"Ninety years ago, a school in Bath, Michigan was rigged with explosives in a brutal act that stunned the town"

The 1927 Bombing That Remains Americaâs Deadliest School Massacre

More than 90 years ago, a school in Bath, Michigan was rigged with explosives in a brutal act that stunned the town

www.smithsonianmag.com

EXCERPTS "In the end 44 people died, 38 of them students. It wasn’t the first bombing in the country’s history—at least eight were killed during the Haymarket Square rally in Chicago in 1886, and 30 when a bomb exploded in Manhattan in 1920. But none had been so deadly as this, or affected so many children."CONTINUED

 

[JoeB131]

It is notable that most of those who use this line, to argue against the rights to keep and bear arm, also support the right to murder innocent children in cold blood via abortion; which results in at least an order or two of magnitude more innocent children dying than can be attributed to any causes that involve guns.

Fetuses aren't children, Bob. it's why we don't prosecute women for having them.

We prosecute the occasional poor immigrant like Purvi Patel for having a miscarriage until someone realizes that's a miscarriage of justice... but we don't prosecute women for having abortions, which you think would happen if fetuses were people.

 

[JoeB131]

Apparently, there are few things that titillate the gun ban crowd more than mutilated, dead children.

Otherwise why trot out a "preschooler" unless you're relying on melodrama to score emotional points?

The same " what about the little children" line is popular among gun banners because it relies on emotional "feelings" rather than rational thought.

Um, actually, you guys are the ones who are afraid of talking about it, because you don't want to see these images.
THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE VOTING FOR. The ability of a crazy person to buy a gun, walk into a school and mow down a bunch of kids.

America's violence problem is not going to be solved by going on "feelings" but by the use of objective and rational thought.

You are right. Other countries have figured this out. You don't hear about preschool massacres in Japan. Why? Japan banned privately owned guns after the Meiji Restoration of the 1870's. You don't hear about these preschool massacres in the UK, Why? They banned guns in the 1980's. You don't hear about these kinds of massacres in Germany. Why? Because after the Allies (not Hitler) confiscated most of the privately owned weapons after WWII, Germany developed a sensible gun law that keeps guns out of the hands of crazies.

See, Objective and Rational Thought.

Since I was in Laos during the Vietnam War, I am intimately familiar with what modern munitions, napalm, explosives etc do to human tissue.

Quite right... funny thing, the "Right to bear Arms" doesn't include Napalm, Explosives, etc. Because that would be some crazy shit right there.

I mean, if you accept the crazy argument, that we needs our guns to fights our government, why can't the average citizen have Napalm?

That would scare the government a lot more than your pea-shooter.

(1). "Happy Land fire"

So you had to go back 33 years to find an example of mass deaths without guns? (which was just as much because the club owners locked all the exit doors than the effectiveness of the firebomb)

We can't go a day without a mass shooting in this country, to the point where the gun Fetishists try to up the number to qualify as a mass shooting so it doesn't look so bad.

2). "The 1927 Bombing That Remains America’s Deadliest School Massacre"

Really, going back 96 years? Really? You are grasping, bud.

Look, no law is going to stop the determined terrorist with a plan and resources.
But it would do a lot to stop a Lanza, a Holmes or a Cruz from getting a gun before people realize they are crazy.

 

[Auld Phart]

Um, actually, you guys are the ones who are afraid of talking about it, because you don't want to see these images.
THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE VOTING FOR. The ability of a crazy person to buy a gun, walk into a school and mow down a bunch of kids.



You are right. Other countries have figured this out. You don't hear about preschool massacres in Japan. Why? Japan banned privately owned guns after the Meiji Restoration of the 1870's. You don't hear about these preschool massacres in the UK, Why? They banned guns in the 1980's. You don't hear about these kinds of massacres in Germany. Why? Because after the Allies (not Hitler) confiscated most of the privately owned weapons after WWII, Germany developed a sensible gun law that keeps guns out of the hands of crazies.

See, Objective and Rational Thought.


Quite right... funny thing, the "Right to bear Arms" doesn't include Napalm, Explosives, etc. Because that would be some crazy shit right there.

I mean, if you accept the crazy argument, that we needs our guns to fights our government, why can't the average citizen have Napalm?

That would scare the government a lot more than your pea-shooter.


So you had to go back 33 years to find an example of mass deaths without guns? (which was just as much because the club owners locked all the exit doors than the effectiveness of the firebomb)

We can't go a day without a mass shooting in this country, to the point where the gun Fetishists try to up the number to qualify as a mass shooting so it doesn't look so bad.



Really, going back 96 years? Really? You are grasping, bud.

Look, no law is going to stop the determined terrorist with a plan and resources.
But it would do a lot to stop a Lanza, a Holmes or a Cruz from getting a gun before people realize they are crazy.

"Right to bear Arms" doesn't include Napalm, Explosives, etc.

11 years in the military, and you don't know the difference between arms and ordinance?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Um, actually, you guys are the ones who are afraid of talking about it, because you don't want to see these images.
THIS IS WHAT YOU ARE VOTING FOR. The ability of a crazy person to buy a gun, walk into a school and mow down a bunch of kids.



You are right. Other countries have figured this out. You don't hear about preschool massacres in Japan. Why? Japan banned privately owned guns after the Meiji Restoration of the 1870's. You don't hear about these preschool massacres in the UK, Why? They banned guns in the 1980's. You don't hear about these kinds of massacres in Germany. Why? Because after the Allies (not Hitler) confiscated most of the privately owned weapons after WWII, Germany developed a sensible gun law that keeps guns out of the hands of crazies.

See, Objective and Rational Thought.


Quite right... funny thing, the "Right to bear Arms" doesn't include Napalm, Explosives, etc. Because that would be some crazy shit right there.

I mean, if you accept the crazy argument, that we needs our guns to fights our government, why can't the average citizen have Napalm?

That would scare the government a lot more than your pea-shooter.


So you had to go back 33 years to find an example of mass deaths without guns? (which was just as much because the club owners locked all the exit doors than the effectiveness of the firebomb)

We can't go a day without a mass shooting in this country, to the point where the gun Fetishists try to up the number to qualify as a mass shooting so it doesn't look so bad.



Really, going back 96 years? Really? You are grasping, bud.

Look, no law is going to stop the determined terrorist with a plan and resources.
But it would do a lot to stop a Lanza, a Holmes or a Cruz from getting a gun before people realize they are crazy.

there is not a mass shooting every day you lying weasel. There are few mass shootings and the deaths from them while tragic are miniscule compared to all the other things killing people. so few are killed by AR 15 as to be meaningless.

 

[Auld Phart]

Fact check: AR-15 style rifles used in 11 mass shootings since 2012

Of 12 shootings listed, including the Sandy Hook, Pulse, Las Vegas, and Boulder shootings, 11 used AR-15 style rifles. But a post is missing context.

www.usatoday.com

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Fetuses aren't children, Bob.

OK, Göbbels.

 

[JoeB131]

there is not a mass shooting every day you lying weasel. There are few mass shootings and the deaths from them while tragic are miniscule compared to all the other things killing people. so few are killed by AR 15 as to be meaningless.

There were 695 mass shootings in 2022.

Didn't specify that they only involved AR-15s.

 

[Auld Phart]

There were 695 mass shootings in 2022.

Didn't specify that they only involved AR-15s.

95%, give or take, of mass shootings are done with handguns.

Why the push to ban rifles?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

There were 695 mass shootings in 2022.

Didn't specify that they only involved AR-15s.

LOL you are counting gang shootings and shootings that are not classified as mass shootings as usual you are lying.

 

[JoeB131]

95%, give or take, of mass shootings are done with handguns.

Why the push to ban rifles?

Most rifles I'm fine with.
Ones designed for a battlefield have no place on our streets.

LOL you are counting gang shootings and shootings that are not classified as mass shootings as usual you are lying.

Mass shooting- More than one person killed or injured. That seems like a pretty simple definition.

Whehter you were shot by a gang member or a crazy person really doesn't matter, does it?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Most rifles I'm fine with.
Ones designed for a battlefield have no place on our streets.



Mass shooting- More than one person killed or injured. That seems like a pretty simple definition.

Whehter you were shot by a gang member or a crazy person really doesn't matter, does it?

Incorrect definition.

The FBI does not use the "mass shooting" term but uses a broader term, "mass murder" when four or more victims are slain, in one event, at one location, not including the perpetrator.

 

[JoeB131]

Incorrect definition.

The FBI does not use the "mass shooting" term but uses a broader term, "mass murder" when four or more victims are slain, in one event, at one location, not including the perpetrator.

I couldn't care less what the FBI does.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I couldn't care less what the FBI does.

They make the definitions, not Wikipedia.

 

[Auld Phart]

Most rifles I'm fine with.
Ones designed for a battlefield have no place on our streets.



Mass shooting- More than one person killed or injured. That seems like a pretty simple definition.

Whehter you were shot by a gang member or a crazy person really doesn't matter, does it?

Ones designed for a battlefield have no place on our streets.

That would include flintlocks and muskets.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I couldn't care less what the FBI does.

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”—Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass​

If you insist on using words and phrases to mean something other than what everyone else understand them to mean, then all you are doing is corrupting the use of language, and making any useful conversation very difficult, if not impossible.

A word doesn't mean anything, a phrase doesn't mean anything, unless everyone in the conversation agrees on what it means.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Most rifles I'm fine with.
Ones designed for a battlefield have no place on our streets.

Having been in the Army, you have no excuse at all for not understanding that any good deer-hunting rifle is far deadlier than any “assault weapon”.

A common deer round, like the larger 30-06 pictured below, is much deadlier than the smaller round pictured below, which is the 5.56mm/.223 round used by an AR-15.

 

[task0778]

It's hard to understand how any state can sue any manufacturing company (arms or otherwise) for the misuse of it's product. I don't see how the SCOTUS could allow that, cuz then the affected companies could be forced out of business by frivolous lawsuits that the plaintiffs can't win. And should the time ever come where such a case could and did win, that's when you'll know this country is well and truly fucked.

I am not a constitutional scholar by any means, but I don't believe states have the power to enact laws that influence inter-state commerce. IOW, I don't think a state can enact a law that interferes with businesses in another state.

 

[Jarlaxle]

You're gonna get the raft of gun nuts screaming at you here.

Just like you, I'm not anti gun. I believe those that are suitable own and enjoy guns. I believe those that are suitable own and enjoy cars, ladders, air rifles, takeaways etc.. Just like everything in life, society just needs to help prevent the undesirables owning/using what suitable citizens use.

Take my kitchen worktop, double it, the skull of a gun nut is 15 times thicker than that, they make Neanderthals look intelligent.

Actually, most "gun nuts" I have dealt with are quite intelligent. Indeed, many are experts in math (it's more or less required for people who load their own match-grade ammo) and many are experienced machinists.

Throughout time the elite have only been able to keep their power by keeping the peasants disarmed.

Try reading some history, you are terribly ignorant of it.

No, he is not. Ignorance can be corrected...he is STUPID.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Did you know mong, even 9 year olds in the UK own shotgun licences. You pussies in America can't have a shotgun at that age. Fucking faggots

That's a lie. Hell, my uncle had a rifle by age ten. He had his first semiautomatic rifle (M1 carbine) at age twelve, which was also the age he fired his first machine gun.